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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2906 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The final point on the press release was "Failed attempt to 'gag' LAPACs making comment to the media". What Mr Corbell fails to acknowledge here is that the government has set up the LAPACs and expanded the whole process, and they were set up to advise the minister. They are the minister's advisory body. Isn't it appropriate that, out of courtesy, the advisory body might tell the minister what they are going to say or advise before they say it in public. There is no attempt to gag here. (Extension of time granted.)

If I could read from the LAPAC protocol:

that is, the minister's LAPAC spokesperson-

what we do not want is the role of LAPAC used for other purposes-

I would have thought good manners was appropriate for all of us, but again you twist things. We all know about the politics we play here-we are politicians, but what we do not get from Labor is vision. What we do not get from Labor is a statement as to where they would go, and what we also do not get from Labor is an acknowledgment of the work that we do, and of the consultation that we do undertake.

In 1996, the Stein review, which really was a review of the planning and development process left in ruins by the Labor Party, came up with suggestions. That work was further continued with the Ernst and Young review of PALM in 1998, which made other suggestions. What we are doing is making sure that planning meets the needs of Canberrans, and we are doing that in consultation with Canberrans, so they can have their say.

You only have to look at some of the planning initiatives that we have undertaken. The section master plans are in the consultation process at present. Planning and Land Management officers are personally knocking on doors and talking to the residents, letterboxing, and making sure we receive their comments. You can see the outcomes. You can see the effectiveness, because some of those sections have said, "No development," and these sections are zoned that way in the master plan, because that is what the residents wanted.

In other areas there is a mix of views. Some residents have said, "Leave our end of the section alone," and at the other end they want to redevelop. That is fine by us. Some areas have said, "Go for your life if you want to redevelop the whole section." We are working honestly, because we are reflecting what the people want. Now, Ms Tucker made the point about getting the process right. Again, it seems to be that, if the process delivers what the Greens or the Labor Party want, then it is a good process, but if it does not give them what they want then the process is flawed.

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