Page 4067 - Week 15 - Thursday, 17 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Without a transparent and fair system, we continue to generate distrust in politicians in this Assembly and are open to accusations that we do not serve the community interest. While the Government and public service officers may intend to be open, honest and fair in the planning process, it is not the way many in the community see things. If the process were more open and consultative, the Government would have a better chance of promoting its ideas within the community and gaining support for development proposals, while satisfying the critics of the planning process, who after all are electors, taxpayers, ratepayers and contributors to the ACT. Madam Speaker, I commend this motion of disallowance to the Assembly.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.04): I do not support this disallowance motion. Ms Szuty has just taken about 17 minutes to present to the Assembly information on which she bases her motion of disallowance, all of which was available to members of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee before their decision was made. There was no new information in anything that Ms Szuty said that would cause me to change my mind. In other words, Ms Szuty was the one person out of five on the committee who did not agree with the recommendation and, on the basis of her standing aside from the unanimous view of the other four members of the committee, she now seeks to disallow this variation to the Territory Plan.
Madam Speaker, as I said, all of the matters that Ms Szuty brought forward were fully considered by the committee. All of the documentation was available to the committee. All of the evidence was presented. The committee had ample time to consider all of the factors for and against the variation and, as I said, four out of five members of the committee were satisfied that the proposal was an acceptable proposal and that all of the reasons that had been advanced to show why it should not proceed had been properly aired, properly considered and given due weight in the decision making process.
Ms Szuty is not suggesting that there was anything defective in the process. What she is saying is that she places different weight on some of the evidence than the other four members of the committee do. Unfortunately, the committee process is a democratic process whereby in the end, like anything else in politics, the decision is made by the majority of the members present. I accept that Ms Szuty is exercising her prerogative as a member to dissent from the majority decision. I perhaps would have been persuaded had she been able to demonstrate that there was some defect in the process, that some evidence had not been heard or that there was some validity to her proposition that some evidence was not given due weight. I reject all of those things.
There was perhaps some suggestion in her comments that she is better informed than the other members of the committee on this matter. I refute that. I have been involved in planning matters for this Territory for many years, and I have been a member of committees of this Assembly for a lot longer than Ms Szuty. I believe that my knowledge of the planning issues, and specifically those in relation to West Belconnen, is at least equal to hers. I do not accept that my opinion is of less value than hers in coming to the decision to support this proposal.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .