Page 2528 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 15 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ACT would be an open and consultative process. Laudable as the aim of this motion might be, the Rally believes that it is misguided, and I will identify the major problems in the brief time available to me.
At this stage I think it is important to remind the Assembly of the policy platform in this area on which the proponent of this motion was elected and his subsequent pledge, after he decided to leave the Rally, to retain his commitment to these principles - principles, Mr Speaker, that he considered the Rally had forgone. In the planning policy of the Rally issued to the people of Canberra on 31 January this year, the first sentence reads:
These policies are based on the main premise that planning decisions in the ACT should be made in open forum.
A section of that same policy which refers to the environment reads:
. All major proposals for development or redevelopment are to be subject to an environmental impact statement prepared at the expense of the proposer.
. The environmental impact statement is required to consider separately the effect on the natural, built, social and economic environment by the project.
. Bona-fide community groups can seek a requirement for, or an assessment of the quality of, an environmental impact statement by the Appeals Authority.
Let us then examine very closely the proposal that we have before us to see whether it complies with this statement of policy that the mover of the motion was elected to uphold. Now, if we were to find that it does, the Rally would have to support it. However, if we find something else, we must assume either that the mover of this motion is misguided in what he believes the proposal would achieve or that there is another agenda, of which we are not aware.
As I have already indicated, Mr Speaker, the Rally does not believe that the proposal meets Rally policy, so as we are in a charitable mood at this time we can only assume that Mr Moore is misguided in his understanding of what he is hoping to achieve.
One of the first things that I looked for in this motion was the identification of the role of the Assembly - not the Executive, Mr Speaker, but the Assembly - a role that we in the Rally consider most important, given that we have a minority government. All I saw were phrases like - I accept that they have been changed, but I do not think it affects the thrust of what I am saying - "Minister for the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .