Page 1529 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That requires that I have a high level of confidence in the various agencies of my department, and I want, in this short speech, to indicate that I have that confidence. I believe that the secretary of the department has acted effectively to ensure integrity in that department. I have that confidence not just in the secretary but also in the range of officers in the department. I believe that they perform their functions to the benefit of the ACT. In every discussion I have the central theme is, "What is best for Canberra? What can we do that is most useful to advance the programs that we have to look after the interests of the people?". I believe that that department and its head have delivered a high-quality service to the ACT. We now are to have an inquiry following the allegations that have been made. I cannot pre-empt that inquiry. I cannot say what it will bring, but I want to indicate at this stage that I have every confidence that the ACT has been extraordinarily well served by these officers. I think it is important that I say that.
MR LAMONT (4.57): I rise to support the amendment and to speak against the motion moved by Mr Moore. Part of the reason for that was outlined in the discussion on the MPI. In particular, I believe that Mr Moore's motion seeks to address questions which are rightfully the province of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee inasmuch as it is currently conducting a review of a variation forwarded to it by the Executive known as the draft Territory Plan. That document contains the consolidation of 1,100 policies of the NCDC. It constitutes a review of an extensive public consultation period. It encompasses every policy in relation to design and siting in the Territory, for single dwellings, multiple dwellings and commercial dwellings. It identifies land use controls and policies in every town centre, precinct and urban area in the ACT, as well as public land, open space, ridges, hills, buffers, et cetera.
The questions that are raised substantively in paragraph (4) of Mr Moore's motion are covered by any review of the Territory Plan. They must, by their very nature, be covered in the review of the Territory Plan currently being conducted by a committee of this Assembly. In relation to Braddon as a precedent for urban consolidation, that also is a question currently being considered by the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee inasmuch as the general issue of urban consolidation is concerned. The appeal mechanisms were the subject of extensive submissions to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee - they are on the public record - by organisations as disparate as the Conservation Council, the Belconnen Community Council, the Business Council, Argyle Consultants - a name which probably is familiar to Mr Moore - and a whole range of other groups and individuals.
What is being proposed is that we do not duplicate the efforts that this Assembly and elected members of this Assembly are already involved in. What is proposed by the amendment is to have a well-focused, short, but appropriate review into those issues in his motion - not the allegations, not the innuendo, not the slur, not the besmirching contained in Mr Moore's debate on the MPI - that we should come to grips with. The amendment says:
(1) examines any difficulties identified with the development of section 22, Braddon with the aim of finding a way to avoid such problems in the future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .