Page 5368 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So, I find it rather difficult to believe that the Rally is really serious when it says, "We want Canberra to remain the stereotype that we have established; we want no innovation; we want development never to be any different from what we have now; and the way that we will achieve that is to take out this concept of defined land that allows the Government the flexibility that it requires".
I am amazed that somebody who knows as much about the planning Bill and planning issues generally as Mr Jensen does should be putting forward the notion that this concept should be taken out of the Bill and that we should never consider something that is new, different and innovative. It indicates a closed mind, which I frankly do not believe that Mr Jensen has. So, I wonder where the impetus for this has come from - who it is that has prompted him to take this view - - -
Mr Connolly: Which gnome?
MR KAINE: Yes, one of those gnomes. I wonder which one has prompted him to take this narrow, closed minded view of wanting to take this concept out of the Bill and take with it the innovation and initiative that it implies. So, I certainly cannot support the Rally, or Mr Jensen, in this intention to remove this concept from the Bill.
MR MOORE (12.30): Mr Speaker, in his speech the Leader of the Opposition, I think, raised a series of concerns that are basically groundless. The concept of having defined land is not necessary in order to achieve the sorts of innovations that Mr Kaine has talked about. In fact, I think that can be adequately demonstrated by the fact that, with its problems, Kingston, for example, has been redeveloped using a process of public consultation. I am not setting up Kingston as a model and saying, "This is how it should be done". What I am saying is that, under a system without defined land, it is certainly possible still to achieve the very things that Mr Kaine has talked about.
The one difference is that, where there is not a defined land concept, there is a requirement for a certain amount of public input, and a certain ability to appeal against the concepts. It may well be that a consortium has a very good concept and that certain people who wish to appeal against it find that their concern is groundless. That happens, of course, constantly, and quite appropriately so. It is also quite possible that there are some very good grounds - for example, environmental grounds - upon which a consortium's proposal ought not to go ahead. But the community as a whole, under this defined land system, will not have the opportunity to have an input of that kind. I think that is the difference.
I fail to understand - and I have heard the argument put on many occasions over the last few weeks - why it is that members of the Liberal and Labor parties particularly are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .