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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2892 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

little to encourage it. For that reason, the Assembly quite rightly rejected moves to reduce betterment charge to 50 per cent.

We now have the spectacle of the minister coming back into this place and saying that he wants to try to change the law again. This is the same minister who talked about the need for certainty when it came to change of use charge, and the same minister who said we should not go around changing the rules every five minutes. And what does he do? Less than three months after this Assembly makes an unequivocal decision about change of use charge and the level at which it should be set, he is back here arguing for a change again-an appalling approach by this minister.

But wait, Mr Speaker, there is still more. Then we had the minister's failed attempt to try to introduce development into the Federal Golf Club. This was despite his predecessor in the last Assembly, from the same government, saying that redevelopment of the Federal Golf Club would never be considered again. Do you remember who said that? Gary Humphries said that and it was so interesting to see Gary Humphries not participating in the debate on the Federal Golf Club. But the minister charged ahead on the Federal Golf Club; he tried to bulldoze his way through and, again, the Assembly rejected his proposal.

But, Mr Speaker, there is still more. This minister's record is just a litany of mistakes, errors and bad judgments when it comes to planning. What is the next one, Mr Speaker? The next one, of course, is rural residential development. The minister decided that rural residential development would be a great idea and he commissioned a report-an independent consultant's report, we call it-to examine all the issues relating to rural residential development.

What did we discover, Mr Speaker? We discovered that, in fact, his department was attempting-to use the consultant's words-to "massage the report". Why would a department and a minister seek to massage an independent consultant's report? There is only one reason why a minister would do that and that is to make sure that the independent report said what he wanted it to say. So, again, this is an inappropriate exercise of power, and an inappropriate way for a minister for planning to behave.

The one I think that has really caused a lot of resentment, if all of those have not, was the issue to do with the protocol for the local area planning advisory committees. Now, the local area planning advisory committees are, of course, important mechanisms for providing communities with the opportunity to comment on development issues. What did the minister propose in a protocol for the local area planning advisory committees? He proposed a protocol that required the LAPACs to inform his office of any media comment they were planning to make before they made it.

I know that the minister likes to call this advice, but I know what the LAPACs think of it. They think it is an attempt to gag them. They think it is that simple-an attempt to gag them. It is my understanding that, without exception, the LAPACs have rejected that requirement and have told the minister this in no uncertain terms. You have to ask the question, Mr Speaker: what has the minister got to hide? What is the minister worried about that makes him think that the LAPACs should not make comments in the media without having to get clearance from his media adviser? Is he afraid of some sort of debate on planning or can't he cope unless he is informed of something in advance?

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