Page 3612 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
During my inaugural speech in this Second ACT Legislative Assembly I drew members' attention to the importance of involving the Canberra community in our decision making processes, and for good reason. We live among the most highly educated community in Australia, people who have high expectations of the standard of work that their elected MLAs will deliver. By endorsing this variation at this time the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure has chosen to ignore the views of many people who are concerned enough about the impact of this draft variation to put forward their views to the ACT Planning Authority for consideration.
Madam Speaker, I do not believe that it is the role of the Assembly's Standing Committee on Planning to rubber stamp the variations that we are presented with for consideration. I believe in the case of the West Belconnen variation that that has indeed occurred. I intend to pursue this matter by moving a motion of disallowance in the course of this sitting period, which will give members time to reconsider or to consider the matter further. In the interests of proper consultative processes and open government, I urge members to consider this matter thoughtfully and carefully. It is not yet too late to prevent the variation regarding West Belconnen from proceeding at this time.
MR MOORE (5.05): Madam Speaker, there was a great contrast between the speeches given by Mr Kaine and Mr Lamont. Mr Kaine argued logically and rationally from his perspective. He said that it was his responsibility to look at variations and to make his decision on those variations. He made it very clear - I am sure that he will be happy with the way I rephrase it - that he saw some difficulty with design and siting but that the responsibility of the Planning Committee was restricted to variations to leases.
In fact, that is absolutely correct. That being true, I can see why the committee approved the Gungahlin, Griffith and Braddon variations. The issue of design and siting raised in respect of Braddon reflects the lack of third party appeals - I think this is what Mr Kaine was referring to - when somebody knows that something peculiar is going on next door, across the road or up the street and knows what impact it will have. Most people in Canberra - although it is a very huge number compared to other places - do not know what the impact of a variation of a lease will be until they actually see a proposal for what is to go on that particular site. That is why I argued during the debate on the Land (Planning and Environment) (Amendment) Bill that there should be third party appeals at the design and siting stage. I still argue that that should be the case.
Madam Speaker, contrast the logical and rational Mr Kaine with the intimidating Mr Lamont. Mr Lamont did not attempt to argue the logical rationale. Instead, he tended to intimidate. Mr "Bully" Lamont dealt very lightly with the truth, Madam Speaker, when he suggested that in fact the ravings of Mr Moore were to do with the fact that he had a nature to object. Madam Speaker, I think that we are aware that the Assembly and the Planning Committee have dealt with a large number of variations which Mr Moore has not objected to. It is not in the nature of Mr Moore to object; it is in the nature of Mr Moore to watch, to look, to weigh up.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .