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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4854 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

My own amendments, as well, were available to me only in draft form late yesterday and were circulated to members overnight before I even had a chance to go through them and double-check them myself, in order to facilitate the process. Had I been interested in just a straight filibuster I would not have attempted to make it easy for other members. The final papers were available only late this morning, so I know that it has been very difficult for members to go through them, to look at them and to double-check them.

I have done my best to respond to the great amount of material here, but I could not possibly assure the Canberra community that I have given it all the scrutiny it deserves. Mr Speaker, I have not given it the scrutiny that I believe it deserves. Not only that, Mr Speaker; I have also approached a number of members of the community who are involved in planning issues and given them copies of the legislation, and they also have worked particularly hard. I have not been able to do them the courtesy of showing them the amendments that have come from Parliamentary Counsel so that they too can check through and so that I can take their advice. I am sure that none of us have had the time to do the amendments justice, and, of course, I include myself in this.

Mr Speaker, as responsible members of parliament we should be prepared to delay this Bill. The Government has certainly not shown any cause at all for the need to handle this material in this woefully short time. I challenge Mr Humphries to explain to the Assembly, in his reply to the debate at the in-principle stage of this Bill, why it is that we must deal with this so quickly instead of putting it off until either February or, as the case may be, next week. There are at least 70 amendments - 35 from me, 24 from the Greens and a dozen from the Government, but none from the Labor crossbenches. In addition, I and perhaps other members plan simply to oppose certain clauses. We are presented with the task of debating these issues fully and responsibly. The amount of time needed for such a task should be obvious to all.

These are not minor matters, Mr Speaker. At every election for this Assembly planning has formed a major part of the issues that people wish to vote on. That has happened at every single election. Why? Because we have not yet got it right. Mr Speaker, this legislation leads us down the path where we will continue to have it wrong. All this happens against a background of continuing haphazard and speculative development. The Government's attempts with LAPACs have yet to assure us that genuine consultation will occur, and the Government has shown signs of wanting to water down their role anyway. With this Minister the policy remains "development first, residents last" every time, on every issue. This legislation before us today emphasises that, and the Labor Party, whatever stance they are taking, are going to support it in spite of their doublespeak.

The general principles that we are talking about in planning require that planning should serve to improve the quality of our city; that planning should serve the residents of Canberra; that planning should allow and assist development, which is within our planned vision; that planning should identify and prevent development based on speculative greed, which harms our city; that lease administration should preserve our land assets and protect our public revenue. The practice of making free gifts by remissions and discounted lease variation fees really ought to cease. Planning should avoid, at all costs, destructive mistakes which deny future generations their right to face these issues,

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