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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2897 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

city. I think that a simple overarching system that recognises every Canberran's right to participate as an equal in shaping the future of our city is limited.

I do not disagree with Mr Corbell's intention in making that comment. Of course we should be trying to make sure that all citizens have opportunities to participate in planning decisions that affect them. We have a huge number of processes in place to achieve that, not the least of which is the committee on which you sit, Mr Corbell.

This is not a failure to administer properly. There is a failure, on Mr Smyth's part, to do what I believe ought to be done, because I disagree with him about a philosophical point. I would say that this is a failure to deliver what I believe in. When I look at the reintroduced piece of legislation on betterment, I think it fails terribly to do what I want and what I believe is right. On the other hand, I suspect that the majority of members of the Assembly will see my view and Mr Corbell's view-we are at one on this-as a failure in the way we approach that particular issue. That will be sorted out on the floor of the Assembly.

There was one other thing that actually worried me greatly, particularly when the Labor Party has been pushing so strongly about, and looking forward to, the Auditor-General's report on Bruce Stadium. The matter that worried me was the issue of the appointment of public servants raised by Mr Corbell. We are not talking about CEOs of departments, who are treated in a slightly different way, but other senior public servants, who are not part of a political process. We never interfere with those appointments, nor should we interfere with those appointments.

When Mr Corbell says that Mr Smyth was, in some way, responsible because two people did not get a final interview, I am sure that Mr Smyth did not say, "Sorry, you are not going to get an interview" or "Let's make sure these do not get an interview." The process goes on at arms length, away from government, and so it should. Something relevant happened just recently when Mr Humphries announced that we will have a probity process, to make sure that whatever is going on in government can be cleared. No doubt that grew out of criticism in the draft comments from the Auditor-General on Bruce Stadium about some of the things that have gone wrong.

The government is responding already to issues that we know must be dealt with, and getting solutions in place, and probity is one of those important issues. I am a bit concerned about that comment. No doubt Mr Corbell will clarify what he meant by that comment, and by his comments on some of the other issues that I have raised, particularly the one about every Canberran having an equal right to participate in planning. I am not sure what he meant by that.

I think the motion is too loose. It being so loose and it being a matter of administration as opposed to difference of opinion, I feel very comfortable about opposing this motion.

MR RUGENDYKE (11.21): Mr Speaker, we have heard two excellent speeches here at the opening of this debate this morning, two speeches that have outlined two opposing views.

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