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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4417 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: We need something more specific than that to pass a motion on the floor of this Assembly, Mr Berry. What specifically have we failed to do? If we have failed to cooperate with the Federal Government on planning issues, how do you explain that headline on the front page of the Canberra Times today? It does not make any sense. This is absolutely ludicrous.

Ms McRae: You are doing it now only because it will not pass in the Senate.

MR HUMPHRIES: You are doing it now only because there is an election in two months' time. That is what is going on. That is what it is all about. You suddenly realised that your profile on planning has been subterranean for the last three years and you had better start to do something about it pretty quick smart. That is what it is all about.

Mr Speaker, I will have to go back to the speech notes that have been prepared for me, because I am not really sure of what we are being accused of. I will assume, for the sake of the argument, that we are being criticised for the announcement by Mrs Carnell that we are proposing to the Federal Government that we have some different arrangement with the Federal Government about the management of land in the ACT. It was Mr Kaine, I think, who a couple of years ago moved a motion in this place, successfully, to have the National Capital Authority merge with the ACT planning function so that we had an integrated planning structure for the ACT. That motion, as I recall, was supported unanimously on the floor of this house. I think that was a very laudable move to make. It was very good to see that the Assembly supported the view that there should be an integrated and single ACT planning body for both Commonwealth and ACT planning roles. It is a matter of great regret to me that that has not transpired. We have not seen any willingness by the Federal Government to take that on board.

Again I say to you: When there are so many failings of the Federal Government, which members of this place have been very quick to point to, why do you assume that it is our fault that they have not taken up the idea which we initiated? It has not been through any lack of wanting to put the issue before the Federal Government. In fact, it was at the meeting which was the basis of Ms McRae's motion of no-confidence in me just a few months ago where we talked about the 999-year lease idea. It was at that meeting that I also discussed with the then Minister for Territories the idea of proceeding with a merged planning function for the ACT, doing in the NCA in favour of a single integrated authority. We put the case very forcefully on that occasion. We again said to the Federal Government, "You need to act in this area. It is a good thing to do. You are going to achieve savings in your own budget and you are going to achieve an integrated planning outcome in both our contexts". There has not been success. We have not achieved that.

Again I have to say: Why is that? Whose fault is it? What evidence does Ms McRae have - she has not produced any - to show that this is the fault of the ACT Government? If we were dealing with a pure, lily white, absolutely wonderful body on the other side of the negotiating table there might be some basis for assuming that it must be our fault that these things have not been negotiated very well. You have listed the problems with this other party in these negotiations. Why do you assume that the fault lies on our doorstep? Are you condemning us for the wedding chapel issue or the Nara Peace Park problem?

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