Page 33 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 16 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.15): Madam Speaker, I think the MPI as presented, and certainly as debated, is quite unwarranted. It is unjustified, and the remarks of those opposite have brought attention to that. In the first instance, it is based on one of the worst elements of opposition style, and that is to oppose the Government for the sake of opposing. Mr Kaine just demonstrated that when he gave the Territory Plan a good serve by talking about all the things it should be - the things he never mentioned, never discussed, never wrote in when as Chief Minister he had responsibility for the plan some years ago. Perhaps he has had a subsequent vision. He has not, of course; it is simply that he is beating up an issue. Ms Szuty put it in context a moment ago when she said that the Territory Plan cannot fulfil certain requirements, matters of the order of those that have been debated today. The MPI is simply a measure to oppose for the sake of opposing.
Further, it is an indication of their own prejudice, based on their own processes. They assume that because they do not have a vision, because they do not have an ideology, the Labor Party does not either. They are quite wrong. Of course, they are inconsistent in this. There are times when they accuse us of being ideologues, but that is when it suits them. We certainly are ideologues when it comes to a vision for Canberra. We have a very well expressed vision. The Labor Party is distinctive for the enormous hours we spend in discussion; sometimes they are very long indeed, as we take a great deal of time to work out our proposals. In planning specifically and the future for the ACT in general, that is certainly the case. We do that planning; then we get down to the details. For example, our election document, our vision for Canberra, has been expressed by the Chief Minister. We set down our vision, and then we go into enormous detail to fill out that vision. We are looking at both the long-term and the short-term vision for Canberra.
My memory tells me, and my notes have been carried over from last year, that when this matter was raised it was very much in the context of discussion about the Territory Plan. The Liberals have expanded it. Perhaps they have forgotten what sparked this, but it followed a lot of nonsense around the place about the Territory Plan. The Leader of the Opposition got carried away on this occasion. He wants to add everything imaginable to the Territory Plan so that it becomes the answer to absolutely everything that faces the ACT. It is not intended to be so, of course. In respect of the plan, our long-term vision is to retain the bush capital, to retain our wonderful environment, so that we have an attractive city, where our environment is protected and enhanced, but also, as the Chief Minister said, a successful city with an economy that is growing and diversified. We need a city that maintains and enhances residents' quality of life, safety, health and well-being. I believe that in what the plan has to do to deliver that we have the elements we need.
I am going to confine the rest of my remarks to the plan, because that is what sparked this debate. The plan is a physical planning document. I should have interjected on the Leader of the Opposition, because he has left the Assembly now. He needs to understand that; he needs to know that, because he has a different view now from the one he expressed earlier. I recall that when the current version of the plan was released for comment one so-called expert observer said, "It has no vision, but I will go away and read it". That is the sort of comment we have been getting. What is the plan? First of all, it sets out
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .