Page 1794 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 1 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: Indeed, as Mr Collaery says, and as we acknowledge, the platform, the policy, on this issue is not that different between the Rally and Labor. The difference is that Labor followed its platform, and continues to follow its platform, by not closing schools and by opposing the school closure program. So, Mr Speaker, Mr Humphries' defence that it is all right to proceed with this indecent haste because all we want to do is to delay the process is no defence at all.
He says, also in defence, that what they are doing is okay because they are complying with the Act. It has never been suggested that they are not complying with the Act. The Interim Planning Act certainly allows for a 21-day consultation period. But, as we point out, that is the minimum period. Mr Humphries acknowledged in the debate that this is a very significant question, or a sensitive matter. I think he said that the school closure debate is a sensitive matter, as indeed it is. You would think that a government that was responsive to community opinion, a government that cared what the community thought and was in tune with community expectations, recognising that it is dealing with a sensitive matter, would give more than the bare statutory minimum period of consultation; but not a bit of it.
The Act makes it plain that 21 days is a minimum. The Act makes it clear that a longer period for consultation can be provided, as one would expect. That is a sensible legislative provision. We supported the provision in the Bill when it was introduced by Mr Kaine. You would expect that there would be cases where 21 days would be appropriate for a change to the plan. Mr Moore has given the example, and it is a good example, of a minor variation to the plan that may allow certain extensions on residential buildings, or may allow certain encroachment onto an area which was reserved for other purposes. For minor variations to the plan, 21 days would seem appropriate. Mr Humphries said that this sort of thing happens all the time. Indeed, it does happen all the time on non-sensitive, ordinary, run of the mill variations to the plan. We have no difficulties with 21 days in those circumstances.
But the closing down of schools and the flogging off of that urban green space, the fundamental change that that makes to the heart of Canberra communities, is, in Mr Humphries' words, a sensitive matter; and you would have expected that a sensitive government would have thought, "Well, this is not a case for the minimum statutory consultation period that we think is appropriate for minor, insignificant variations; this is a case for a bit broader community consultations". Did they do that? Not a bit of it. They are rushing it through in the minimum statutory period.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .