Page 2811 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Heritage and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.18): Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, Mr Moore used the term "a botched inquiry" on a couple of occasions, at the beginning and at the end of his speech; but I was encouraged by his comments in the middle part of his speech when he said that he will not pass judgment - he will wait and see what is the outcome of this inquiry and what report Mr Lansdown brings down - before making comment. So, I put down to simple point scoring the comment about a so-called "botched" inquiry, because Mr Moore has clearly not passed judgment before a report has come down. I appreciate that, because that is the attitude that every person should have. We have a process under way. I am confident about that process, and I await the outcome with interest.
I believe that the process is workable. It is one to which I gave a lot of consideration. Mr Moore had called for a moratorium. That simply was not possible. It was probably illegal. I did not have any more detail than a moratorium which said simply, "Stop everything". The Liberals had called for an inquiry, again without giving much detail. They wanted an inquiry. They were hearing concerns, so they said, "Let us have an inquiry". But then we had to accommodate the issue of what was to happen to current applications. So, it was left to me, on advice, to come up with a process that might enable this to work. That process uses the statutory timeframe established in our legislation. We have to deal with applications within a period of 13 weeks. So, within that period of 13 weeks, we need to have the inquiry set up, running and reporting, and we still need to deal with applications that are current. It is a workable process. It gives the community time to indicate what they like and what they do not like, and it imposes the least possible strain on the building industry. I acknowledge that there will inevitably be pressures on the building industry as they accommodate this review.
The process that Mr Moore suggested was botched was an agreed process. I had heard what was being said in the community. As Minister, I tend to hear more than most people do what is being said. I was interested to do something about it. My colleagues certainly had the same view. I had to consider how this was to be done. I was well aware of what Mr Cornwell and Mr Moore were saying. The view generally expressed was that, if there is to be change - and there are some who question whether there should be any change at all - we have to look at the pace of that change, the quality of what is happening and perhaps the densities. That is what we have attended to.
I repeat that the process was agreed, and I believe that we can now work through it. It is appropriate that I agreed to a process. When the Territory Plan came in a year or so ago, I indicated that we would need further review. I have said often to the other people in this Assembly that that is particularly the case because, at the time of the last election, when the Territory Plan was first out in the community, about three years ago - that is how long we have been debating these issues - the debate was hijacked. There was the irrelevancy of the pink bits. The pink bits were, and properly so, no more than an exercise in saying to the community, "At some time in the future we have to examine these bits and pieces of land to determine a final usage". Actually, the brown bits were much more significant than the pink bits, because the brown bits were taking a piece of land and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .