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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2910 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I would like to quote from a book by two Australian academics about planning. They say, "'Participation' can mask and therefore protect the power of elites, including professional experts." How true, Mr Speaker. Participation can mask and protect the power of elites, protecting the decisions and the wishes of those who have already asked for the decision to be made.

That is what we do in Canberra. The decision is made, the minister's ear is won, and a proposal is made to vary the Territory Plan. We all know that, unless enough people stand up and fight really hard to stop that Territory Plan variation being approved, it is going to get through. The power is in the minister's hands, and if you can influence the minister you are three-quarters of the way there.

The minister also asked, "Where is Labor's approach?" I would like put on the record, Mr Speaker, that Labor has a comprehensive policy platform, adopted at its last annual conference, that deals with planning issues. Labor is engaging with LAPACs, with community and residents' organisations, with professional bodies and with industry associations to talk in detail about what we need to do to fix the problems in planning at the moment. It was interesting that the minister did not want to talk about the LAPACs' response to his attempt to prevent them from making comments, and the fact that every single LAPAC has rejected his attempt.

The minister said that I was wrong to claim that he had failed in his attempt to introduce dual occupancy development into the old Red Hill heritage area. Well minister, the direction of this Assembly was clear-it did not say "review it for the purposes of seeing whether or not dual occupancy should happen in Red Hill". This Assembly asked you to give a direction to the planning authority, which you have done, to ensure that dual occupancy does not occur in the old Red Hill heritage area. Yes, your attempt to introduce dual occupancy was a failed attempt, as was your attempt to introduce 50 per cent change of use charge.

And yet the minister has the temerity to say that this does not mean that the Assembly endorsed 100 per cent. Well, what an absolute nonsense. We all know that the Land (Planning and Environment) Act said that, on 1 October this year, change of use charge becomes 100 per cent. But the minister seems to suggest that the Assembly was in ignorance of that fact when we made the decision. What an absurd argument.

The minister goes on to talk about rural residential development and he says that he did not attempt to massage or change the so-called independent consultant's report. Well, I have to remind the minister of the motion of grave concern passed in him by this place for his attempt to portray that report as independent, when it was not. So minister, you can duck and weave as much as you like, but the bottom line is that your record on planning is absolutely appalling.

I want to respond briefly to Ms Tucker. Ms Tucker made the point that she did not know why I was moving this motion. I am moving this motion, Mr Deputy Speaker, because this debate is more than just a matter of public importance-it is a substantive policy issue. It is an issue that many Canberrans want to have debated more often and more openly.

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