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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4885 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

country on any issue that you would care to name. There is no reason why here in the ACT we cannot advance some solution to that problem. I suggest that a solution is being presented here. It is just the classic and continual problem of having the fox in charge of the henhouse, so to speak. The process is often biased.

Ms McRae speaks about public perceptions. This is one of the things that seriously need to be addressed. The public perception is not good. It is very poor in this area.

Ms McRae: In your opinion.

MS HORODNY: Ms McRae is obviously not in touch with the community here in the ACT; otherwise, she would know very well that the public perception is very poor in this regard. I would be very interested to see one example at least of a preliminary assessment that recommended against a development. I would love someone to put that forward and to table it here.

Ms McRae: What has that to do with anything? What is the logic of that?

MS HORODNY: Ms McRae, it shows that PAs always recommend a development. It might suggest nothing to you, Ms McRae. To me, it smells a little odd.

Another issue is that there is never any post-development monitoring to assess whether the development complies with the preliminary assessment. These are ongoing issues. It seems that there is no commitment on the part of this Government or on the part of the Labor Party to support any sensible amendments that would go some way at least to solving this problem. We are going to see this problem perpetuated. The Government does not seem to have any willpower on this issue, so the public perception continues to be poor, with no solution in sight. I think it is a very sad day for planning. Indeed, it has been a very sad week for planning in the ACT.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (9.32): Ms Horodny said that the process is biased, and she went on to talk about how the perception of the process was very bad. To some extent, she is a reflection of the views of her electorate when she comes into this place and makes statements or assertions about the way in which certain things are seen out in the community. You are entitled to do that, Ms Horodny. You are entitled to say, "My constituents feel that certain things are the case". You also have a responsibility to say on occasions, "This is the perception, even though I can see that the reality may be different". With great respect - - -

Ms Horodny: But the reality is not different.

MR HUMPHRIES: You assert that. You are asserting that the PER processes, preliminary assessments and so on are actually biased, not just that they are perceived to be biased. That is a statement I would like you to prove. I challenge you to find some evidence of that assertion.

Mr Moore: She just said it.

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