Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (10 March) . . Page.. 487 ..
MR SMYTH
(continuing):We did employ some independent consultants to help. We employed people outside the Government to assist us in the preparation of this. We went to other groups to help us assist in this. The decision here is: What is this about? This is only about the fact that the Labor Party do not like the concept of rural residential development. You cannot attack the Assembly's decision because the Assembly has voted in favour of the Government's move to put rural residential development in place, so you go for the process.
For the information of members, it was curious that when I went to mention this yesterday Mr Corbell jumped to his feet and said, "That has no relevance here". Approximately 5,000 pages of material were involved in the FOI. Given that a large amount of work has been done, given that that material was there and Mr Corbell is entitled to FOI it, as is his right - and we waived the fees for it - and Mr Corbell chose to take some 1,650 pages of it, it shows quite clearly that the process is there. The process has been followed. Input from others was received but, for instance, for the assessment of sites we brought in specialist knowledge. We brought in independent knowledge to make sure that we had something to work with.
Mr Speaker, the introduction to the discussion paper makes it quite clear that PALM, in the ACT Department of Urban Services, commissioned the preparation of the discussion paper on rural residential development following a number of inquiries over previous years and that the paper was prepared in the context of the Legislative Assembly resolution of 28 May 1998 supporting the introduction of rural residential development in the ACT and progressed the Government's response to the Rural Policy Taskforce. The study provides an analysis of rural residential development as a separate land use and identifies suitable sites, and this is what we have gone ahead and done. We brought in some independent consultants to help us with that. Again I would say perhaps the "independent" in the first line is an unfortunate use, and for that I would apologise. But the study was done independent of PALM. Then, in conjunction with other groups, including non-government groups, the study was brought together for a discussion paper. What have we done with the discussion paper? We have put the discussion paper out for discussion so that people can have their say on what is in it. Many people knew of this process. The process is appropriate. I am told it is the process that is normally followed when the Government is implementing its policy.
If some form of corruption was found, of course you would go to an independent assessor or indeed to the police as appropriate. You would refer something to the police for an independent discussion in that regard. But in this case we brought in independent consultants to give us advice on how we should proceed with this. My reference yesterday to "independent" is accurate in that they were prepared by consultants. Then other groups were brought in to discuss them.
Mr Stanhope: This is like Michael Moore's three principles. These are the three principles of independence.
MR SMYTH
: These groups are independent. You cannot deny that they are independent of government. You just do not like this decision. You do not like it that we are getting onto providing options for the people of the ACT in rural residential
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .