Page 4441 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
really window dressing and, to use a probably overdone phrase these days, a Clayton's compromise - the compromise you are having when you are not having a compromise.
Mr Speaker, this is indeed an historic day for the Assembly, as I have already indicated. However, it will also be a sad day when, and if, this proposal is accepted by this Assembly and not disallowed tomorrow when it comes up for debate. It seems to me that this majority, and I repeat "majority", and not unanimous report will be used to justify such a decision.
Frankly, Mr Speaker, this proposal we have looked at is bad planning and not a good omen for the future, as we debate the new planning legislation and the Territory Plan. The community is currently being asked to consider more than nine planning variations - the West Belconnen proposals, changes to six Gungahlin suburbs, and the draft Territory Plan, including 232 policy plan changes that are tucked away in the back of one of the reports - all within a very short period of time, and over the Christmas period.
At least the Minister, to his credit, has chosen to extend the time for discussions on the plan until March. I trust that he also ensures that the planners provide more information on the changes in the plan than we have seen already. If this proposal is anything to go by, I am not very hopeful; but I am sure community pressure will continue to mount in respect of these concerns.
Let me now, in the time allowed, Mr Speaker, turn to the report and the comments that I made in my dissenting remarks. I think it is important that some of the remarks that I have made in my report be put on the Hansard record. The first point that I need to comment on is the suggestion that this committee should consider only the due process that was applied. Mr Speaker, it is my view that the committee has a role also to consider the merits of this proposal, particularly when there is no effective appeal process within the ACT for these sorts of considerations. The merits of the planning proposals are not covered by the courts at the moment - only points of law.
It seems to me that the wide powers of inquiry given to committees of this Assembly are appropriate for this sort of activity, and I was very disappointed when, almost from the outset, it was suggested that we were really going to consider only whether due process was followed and nothing else. That is why I guess I knew from day one that I was probably going to have to make the sorts of comments that I have had to make in the rear of this report.
The committee has a role to question all parties, consider evidence obtained, and then make conclusions and recommendations for consideration by the Executive and eventually the Assembly. We must guard against a committee system becoming just a rubber stamp to Executive decisions. It must be seen to be independent and more than just a rubber stamp.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .