Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (14 December) . . Page.. 3068 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

Again the word "perception" is used. Mr Speaker, while in total I do not accept that the lack of faith is fairly held, I do acknowledge that even greater efforts must be made to establish confidence on the part of all in the community in the process of leasing and planning. I believe that most members here will acknowledge that it will not be possible to satisfy every last resident. There are those who take an in-principle opposition to a project, or the very idea of change, and will use every means available to them to object.

Let me emphasise that the overwhelming number of responses are at all times sincere and earnest in their desire for an appropriate outcome, just as those bureaucrats handling the processes are. However, I will not forget the occasion when planners sat with a group until midnight - it was not the first meeting - but still saw next day a media release claiming lack of consultation. I hope the board of inquiry has not committed the same type of offence. In discussing the development of the Territory Plan at paragraph 18.78 the report states:

A common theme expressed by residents and community groups was that ACTPA was perceived -

again that word is used -

as being "pro-developer" and "anti-resident".

It went on at paragraph 18.79 to say:

... the community consultations during the development of the Territory Plan were widely perceived as tokenistic and they considered that little significant change was made to the draft after the consultation process.

That statement says a great deal about the view and the approach that the board of inquiry adopted. It leads me to believe that the board did not really attempt to find out what went on during that long period of development of the plan. I know that some hold the view that the process disguised some of the impacts, but that view cannot be supported by facts. The board cannot have studied Annex C of the planning documents, which was a report on the consultation. It cannot have compared the first and second drafts of the plan. I wonder whether the board's understanding of the plan is based on what some community groups alleged, rather than what the plan says.

The consultation, including the release of discussion papers, extended over nearly four years. Initial meetings began late in 1989. I know, because I was to chair them; but the Alliance Government came to power and took over the running. The first draft, to apprise the community of developments at that stage, was released by me as Minister in October 1991. It was not until late in 1993 that it cleared all processes. Over that period there had been 1,000 submissions, exhibitions in various parts of the ACT, 1,500 copies of the Territory Plan distributed, 120,000 information brochures also distributed, and innumerable responses to the hotline. It was a dedicated and genuine effort at consultation, and the board wants to call it tokenism, a tactic occasionally used by objectors - say what you want regardless of facts.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .