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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2893 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

That is this minister's record when it comes to planning. But, on top of that, we have the issue of this minister's and this government's whole philosophy when it comes to planning. We have only to see that this minister for planning agreed to see the land management function given to the department of treasury to realise this. It is all very well, and it is indeed very important, to have prudent management of the land resource in the ACT. However, to give this function to the department of treasury, an action which has produced some of the situations that have evolved over the past month or so, is quite extraordinary.

I will give you one very good example. As recently as last night, the Manuka LAPAC met to discuss the issue of development in their area and, among other things, the issue of the redevelopment of the old Griffith Primary School site. Now, that is a very important planning issue, isn't it? You might have thought that to be a fairly important urban development issue in the inner south, and you would think that the relevant people from the ACT government would be there managing it. Well 100 people turned up and who was there proposing the planning issues? Who was there talking about the planning issues that needed to be addressed? Was it Planning and Land Management? No. Who was it? It was the Department of Treasury and Infrastructure.

So we have the department of treasury, the Treasurer's department, making decisions about planning and land use, commissioning consultants to handle planning design work, and planning considerations and constraints. The department of treasury is doing the planning and that really underlines this government's whole approach to planning. They see planning purely as a regulatory function.

In no way do they see it as a strategic issue, one that has to be addressed across the city, or one that has to be addressed by a planning authority. No, they see it as simply the best way to get a return on the land asset. We had an extraordinary comment last night from a senior public servant in the Treasurer's department, who said that the Treasury was going to look at open space issues to see whether open space areas of Canberra were being efficiently utilised.

Well, I think most people in Canberra would think that open space is currently being pretty efficiently utilised as open space. They think that is pretty good and they think it is a pretty efficient use of the land. But apparently Treasury thinks otherwise. And why would Treasury think otherwise, Mr Speaker? They think otherwise because they see it as a valuable cash cow from which revenue can be milked for the government.

Under this minister we have had continued cuts to PALM and continued reductions in staffing in PALM. We had an extraordinary situation, during the lead-up to the appointment of the current executive director of PALM, when the two most senior planners in PALM were not even interviewed for the position of executive director. What does it say about this minister's approach to planning and land management when the two most senior planners in PALM are not even interviewed for the position of executive director of the organisation, effectively for the position of ACT planning authority? What an extraordinary approach! But I must say, it is an approach that is not out of character for this minister, not out of character at all.

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