Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2903 ..
MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (11.41): We must always look closely at things, because what might be seen as a negative can always be turned into a positive. What starts as clearly an attack on me-and I think the final words from Ms Tucker were curious: what is Mr Corbell's purpose?-is an excellent opportunity for me to outline what the government has been doing, and will continue to do, to make sure that planning works for the benefit of all Canberrans.
Mr Corbell raises six dot points in his press release, but this is from the man who tinkers with planning. That is all we get from Labor, and particularly Mr Corbell, as their spokesperson for planning-tinkering. We have absolutely no idea where they would take the city. We have absolutely no idea what process they would use to get us there. We have absolutely no idea where Labor stands on planning policies, because the only thing we have seen from Mr Corbell is tinkering.
This is an acknowledgment that he is not up to it, and that Labor is not up to planning. Why? Because they will have an independent planning commissioner. They will make planning the responsibility of a statutory authority, to which it will all be just given away, because it is to hard. Well it is not too hard, Mr Speaker, and this issue is too important to take Labor's approach. So, what we have is Mr Corbell tinkering at the edges, while we are getting on with making sure we build up a city where people can live. And we are doing that.
The motion purports to say that Canberrans cannot participate in shaping the future of their city. Well, was Mr Corbell at the public meetings in August and April of this year to talk about high-quality design and the sustainable future for this city? I do not believe he was there. What have we heard Labor say on the whole issue of sustainability: "Why didn't they raise this before?" Well why didn't you raise it before, Mr Corbell? Why don't you outline what it is that your party would do?
Mr Corbell made some interesting allegations in his speech. He stood up and said, and I may paraphrase him here, "There is a done deal. Brendan will just change the Territory Plan for us and off we will go with our development at the Federal Golf Club." You have either misrepresented very, very badly or you show your ignorance of the planning system, because I cannot vary the Territory Plan. If you do not understand that process, or you are just deliberately misrepresenting it, then you should withdraw and apologise.
Mr Corbell said that, because two senior public servants did not get interview for a job they were applying for, I have somehow interfered. Well, I have no right to interfere. There is no way in which I can direct the employment process. It is all done independent of government. And that is how it should be done. There is a clearly defined process there. What this does tell us is how Labor would do it. It would not be tinkering when Simon Corbell was planning minister. He would hive it off to an independent authority, and then we would see the old Labor traits of interfering, manipulation and failure to follow process.
Mr Corbell: This is from the man who uses the call-in power every day of the week.
MR SMYTH
: Mr Corbell interjects, "This is the man who uses the call-in power." The call-in power was put there for the minister to use. It was put there by this Assembly. I spoke to Mr Moore, because he was here when that call-in power was put into the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .