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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2909 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The planning process, I believe, is going very well. My administration has focused the process to make sure that it is delivering for all the people of Canberra. They can all have their say in this. What we have to achieve, not just for us now, but for our children and their children, is a city that can survive into the future, and we have made that a priority. We have had a lot of discussion about the whole concept, and shortly we will release information about how we will make that happen. I think it is an exciting time for planning in the city.

What we are seeing is the city coming to life again. What we are seeing is an opportunity to make up for the mistakes that Labor made when they were in office. Our alternative planning minister is somebody who would be tinkering at the edges, without any clear articulation of a vision, or how his party would take us there.

This motion should be rejected by the Assembly.

MR CORBELL (12.01), in reply: Where was the strategic vision for planning in Canberra in what we have just heard from the minister for planning? Where was the systemic whole-of-city approach that we need when it comes to strategic planning? We heard the minister talk about customer satisfaction, as though the planning agency was like a bank where, if you got a good service over the counter, everything must be all right.

Of course, customer satisfaction, and the addressing of concerns with individuals who have an interaction with the planning agency is important, but planning is not just about customer satisfaction. Planning is not just about how good your service was over the counter. Planning is so much more than that. That is the problem we have in this city. The minister thinks that planning is just some regulatory function and that, as long as you administer it well, in terms of whether you get the forms out in the right order and all that sort of thing, then everything must be going all right. He is absolutely wrong.

I want to respond to some of the comments made by the minister. First of all, he is wrong to suggest that the government's approach to planning is on the right track. I ask members to think of this: half a suburb a year in Canberra is disappearing through dual occupancy redevelopment. That is around 500 dwellings a year. That has an enormous impact on the built form of our city. It is a trend that Canberrans are increasingly starting to dismiss, but the minister thinks it is all right.

Mr Moore, in his comments, suggested that I was not differentiating well enough between administration and policy. Methinks Mr Moore is, on this occasion, a bit too much of an apologist for the government for my liking. Mr Moore attempted to portray the problems with planning as minor, as being trivial, and as disagreements about policy, but not about administration. Mr Moore, you are wrong: administration and policy are interrelated. In fact, you set up your administrative structures to suit your policy objectives. That is what this government has done.

My argument in this place this morning is that the policy objectives are wrong, and the administrative structures are wrong. The government sets up a planning process that suits the outcomes it wants. The minister sets up planning processes to ensure that consultation only occurs when the decision has really been made-and we all know about that in this place.

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