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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3075 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

not have heard anything from Mr Corbell and the Labor Party, who were happy, smug and complacent about 100 per cent coming.

All we get from Mr Corbell is tinkering at the edges of planning. There is no leadership or clear direction from the Labor Party. Mr Corbell started by saying, "Where is the incentive?" That is a good question. Where is the incentive from Labor? Where is the incentive they have put forward since we had the debate four months ago or more? Where is the incentive in what we have heard from Labor in the last 21/2 years about what they would do in planning? We have heard nothing. There is no incentive. It is only the actions of the government that have stung Labor's spokesman on planning into action.

In the last four months there has been a tremendous debate in this city on the sort of city we want to build. It started in May, when I announced that the overwhelming criteria for planning in this city were now high quality and sustainability. There was not a word from Mr Corbell, except to say, "Why did they not think of that before?" That is a cutting retort, isn't it?

You did not announce it, Mr Corbell. You had no idea. You said, "We should go to 100 per cent. How dare the government come in here and say that we should stay at 75 per cent." While you have been doing nothing but tinkering at the edges, we have been out there consulting, as I said we would. After four months of consultation, I will be announcing soon the outcome of that consultation.

It would have been delightful for you to have participated, Mr Corbell, because we could have had a very meaningful debate. We have had a meaningful debate but in the absence of Labor leadership on the issue. We saw the hollow men of the Labor Party and their leadership earlier this evening. That is all you can expect from them. Labor failed to join in this debate. They have failed to show policy and failed to show leadership.

Earlier this year Amory Lovins from the Rocky Mountains Institute was in town and gave an interesting presentation at the Lakeside. Ms Tucker was there. I acknowledge her interest in this. Mr Lovins spoke of a concept of feebate, rewarding those who do the right thing, by making it easier for them. I have said on several occasions since May that this is the path the government will take.

Mr Corbell says that he has been to the PCO and has amendments coming. He has done that because he has been stung by what the government is doing. It is not leadership; it is reaction. That is all they do over there. They are conservative in their approach, and they are reactionary in their attitude.

Mr Corbell said that he would have rebates for special cases, as if such rebates were something new. Mr Corbell said that Labor had a plan. We are already doing that. There was no acknowledgment that we have already used this technique on several occasions. We have used it for local centre revitalisation and for the Civic revitalisation.

I have announced that when we close down the Civic rebates we will look specifically at a policy for those areas to the west of Civic that still need some work done. As Mr Moore said, we are having discussions for a similar system for aged care. So it goes on. This is a government that is doing it. I guess the acknowledgment from Mr Corbell

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