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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2904 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

legislation, and it was put there so the minister could exercise that power. Now, somehow the call-in power has become something that must only be used in extraordinary circumstances. My understanding of it is that that is not the case.

Now Mr Corbell talks about cuts to PALM and how badly PALM is doing. Well, if you read some of the customer satisfaction surveys, we are getting a tremendous response from the people who use PALM-the ordinary Canberrans who come in with their applications-particularly to the way that we have changed how we are dealing with their applications. What we are doing is giving better service for less.

Now, I want to hear the Labor Party justify being against better service for less cost, because, after all, we are spending taxpayers' money, and the taxpayers, I can assure you, are certainly interested in a change that helps them and brings better service for less. There has been a significant improvement in processing time over the period since the Ernst and Young review, with 91 per cent of single-building DAs, and 69 per cent of other DAs being processed within the statutory time frames. That compares with 82 and 59 per cent for the previous 12 months. So what we are seeing is improvement, and we are making the system work better for everyone involved.

Mr Corbell ought to reflect back on some of the things that were done in planning under Labor: the adoption of AMCORD standards, which have seen a reduction in standards and a deliberate move away from the bush capital. It happened under Labor. What would they do, Mr Speaker? There are the joint ventures that Labor signed up, which, in the main, all failed. We were responsible for getting them back on track and making sure that they returned to the people of the ACT the things that they should.

In his press release, Mr Corbell makes six points, one of which refers to "the failed attempt to introduce dual occupancy into the Heritage listed Old Red Hill area". Well, I am not sure it is a failed attempt, Mr Speaker. That draft variation has actually been gazetted, but it is under review. Why is it under review? Because the Assembly asked me to review it. Mr Corbell actually pre-empts the review with an assumption that it will find-

Mr Corbell: The Assembly has made its view quite clear.

MR SMYTH: No, Mr Corbell, the Assembly asked me to "review with a view to".

Mr Corbell: No, to ensure that, not "a view to".

MR SMYTH: This is a clear example of how planning would occur under Labor. Mr Corbell would just do what he wanted, and he makes it quite clear. He talks about independent reviews and yet he says the independent review should find what he wants. This is the difference. This is the whole point of this motion. Mr Corbell does not get what he wants. He talks about betterment. He says in his press release, "A failed attempt to reduce betterment tax to 50 per cent". Mr Speaker, it was not passed by the Assembly, but at no time did the Assembly say it would go to 100 per cent and that is what Mr Corbell does not like.

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