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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3081 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

We do not support these amendments. We believe that certainty will come from removal of the sunset clause, leaving change of use charge at 75 per cent. If we want to continue the planning debate-which we should, because planning, the needs of the city, technology and what people want evolve over time-then we should do that.

Mr Corbell accuses us of creating uncertainty because we want to leave change of use charge where it is. They want to change it to something it has never been. Think of the logic of that, Mr Deputy Speaker. The government opposes the amendments.

MR QUINLAN (10.22): Mr Smyth has just delivered the same old speech. I have to tell the house that a young man quite close to me calls Mr Smyth Canberra's own Dan Quayle. Every day I am in this place and watch him posturing and making the same speech, I have to admire that young man for his perceptiveness and wisdom.

The sense of Mr Corbell's amendments is self-evident. If there is still debate and discussion on this matter, then is seems commonsense that the amendments be adopted.

MR CORBELL (10.23): There are seven clauses in this bill. The most important point is the end note. What does the end note say? It says:

The act was last amended on 30 May 2000. I do not recall the exact date, but that is around the time the Assembly voted to reject Mr Smyth's proposal for 50 per cent change in use charge. On my calculation, the minister wrote two clauses a month. The minister talks about there not being enough time. Thank God we gave the minister some time. Otherwise, the bill would not be completely drafted yet. It is quite nonsensical.

The minister talks about me being missing in action. The minister, of course, only goes to those events where he is nicely cuddled and cosseted by all of his public servants. The minister only goes to those events where he is managing the agenda. That is the only way he can look good. That is the only way he can present his policies in a positive light.

You do not see the minister at those meeting in the community where people are angry about planning proposals. Why don't you not see him there? He could not hack it. He could not cope without his coterie of officials and advisers around him. That is the reality of this minister for planning. If this minister for planning wants to get personal about how planning is debated in this city, I am quite happy to engage in that debate. Planning is much too important to be left to people like Brendan Smyth. It is about public policy. It is about engaging people in democratic decision-making about their city. It is about protecting the public interest, and it is about building not only a sustainable city of good economic and environmental design but also a more equitable city. None of those things are being dealt with in a substantive manner by this minister. I would urge members to support the amendments.

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