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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (14 October) . . Page.. 3176 ..

MR CORBELL: Yes, that was one of the things you said, Mr Kaine. I will get to the others shortly. That is a very cynical comment to make. Perhaps, Mr Kaine, it could be that the Labor Party is prepared to demonstrate a commitment to the principle of leasehold administration and the upholding of the integrity of the Territory Plan. Perhaps, Mr Kaine, that is the reason. In fact, I say that that is the reason.

It is not a decision that we have taken lightly. We are conscious of the effort, the time and the financial resources that the club has put into its proposal. We are conscious that other proposals will come forward at other times - perhaps not as contentious as this but requiring the same types of in-principle decisions to be made. I am very happy to put on the record now that we will address these issues consistently. (Extension of time granted)

Mr Kaine went on to say that we were attacking the wrong people; that Labor was attacking not the Government but the legislature. I should point out to Mr Kaine that the legislature cannot initiate a variation to the Territory Plan. The only body that can initiate a variation to the Territory Plan is the Executive. The Executive initiated the variation. If the Executive had not issued this variation in line with their election commitment in 1997, we would not be here today. But they did not do that, Mr Kaine, so the legislature must respond to the proposals put forward and initiated by the Executive.

Mr Kaine also indicated that Mr Wood had said that this proposal was different.

Mr Kaine: It is not.

MR CORBELL: Mr Kaine argues that it is not. What Mr Kaine neglected to add was that Mr Wood went on to say that in the last Labor administration a change away from that type of process was already clearly occurring. I am very happy to indicate that Labor has continued the process of responding to the concerns that were raised by the changes to concessional leases that occurred in previous administrations. We have continued to respond to those changes, and my colleagues and I have come to the position that this is the most appropriate and relevant course of action in light of the community concern that existed with those previous proposals.

What the Government and Mr Smyth cannot handle is that Labor has taken a creative and positive step in responding to community concern about the need to maintain the integrity of the leasehold system and the need to uphold the principles of the Territory Plan. If the Government is going to be left behind on that, I cannot help that, but the Labor Party is responding in a positive way to renewed community concern about these issues. As I have already indicated, we will do so in a consistent manner.

Mr Kaine made a lot of comments, but he also made a comment about ecological sustainability. I draw Mr Kaine's attention to areas of my dissenting report, if he has not seen it, outlining the fact that this proposal relies entirely on the private motor vehicle as its form of access. The principles of the Territory Plan encourage higher density development close to public transport routes and close to facilities that people can walk to. This proposal is neither of those. Perhaps Mr Kaine should reassess his arguments about ecological sustainability.

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