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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2899 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

unworthy of support when they are assessed against good planning and urban development principles. Examples include the proposal for rural residential development in the ACT, the Gungahlin drive extension through Bruce and O'Connor ridges, and the housing development at the federal golf course.

We have probably objected just as strongly to a number of planning processes, not with the desire to stop development, but in the hope of improving the quality of development. We have opposed reductions in change of use charges from 100 per cent, reductions in third-party appeal rights, the watering down of the ACT leasehold system by allowing 999 year leases, and the minister's call-in powers.

I note a comment from Mr Rugendyke, and from Mr Moore, to which I would like to respond. Mr Rugendyke said, "There are a few people"-and we all know who they are-"who have too much time and a computer." I think it would be fair for Mr Rugendyke to be a little more explicit when he makes those sorts of comments, not necessarily naming the people, but actually giving this Assembly an analysis. If he has followed this so carefully-and he tells us that he knows particular individuals who do this-then he should tell the Assembly on what grounds these people, whom we are all supposed to know, are actually raising objections.

My experience of people who have raised objections to planning processes is that they have an interest in urban development in this city, and the welfare of the ACT community, and broader concern about the common good in planning. If Mr Rugendyke knows that there are other people who have not actually responded on the basis of those broad issues of common good, then I would be interested to hear him go into the detail.

I did not quite catch what Mr Moore was referring to, but he seemed to be saying that he objected to this idea that someone in Tuggeranong would have the same rights to talk about a development, a refurbishment or a redevelopment as did a someone who lived near the development. I do not think Mr Moore would be misrepresenting the fact that people do not have to prove that they will suffer substantial and adverse impact in order to have the right to express a view. I hope he would not misrepresent that matter by saying that this is just about someone in Tuggeranong who, as Mr Rugendyke says, does not have enough to do and has a computer, and would actually make an objection on that basis.

Clearly, that is about organisations who are working for the common good in the ACT, who have a commitment to Canberra as the bush capital and as a place that has so far provided a high quality of life for people who live there. Groups who are working to keep that under public scrutiny have a right to have their voices heard in these sorts of appeals and planning processes, so that we do have this broader perspective brought into the discussion. This is obviously a really important part of democratic processes. I do hope that Mr Moore was not saying that. I assume he was not, and that he does recognise that this issue of not having to prove substantial impact directly is about allowing that democratic process to occur.

In terms of what the issues are-and it is not just Mr Smyth, it is really an issue to do with the whole of government and Mr Humphries as well-in most cases when we have objected to proposals it was more a question of "it is not what you do, but the way that you do it". I have regularly raised concerns about the government's back-to-front

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