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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1097 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

One of the biggest mistakes we have made in relation to community panels was the setting up of the prison community panel. I think that it was just too big. My fear with what Mr Corbell is proposing is that everybody would put up a hand and we would have another situation where we had an extraordinary number of people attempting to work together. We all know how difficult it is to do so on small committees of three members. My committee has four members and it is difficult to do so. It is not too difficult, but there is some work involved in trying to come to a consensus.

The fact that there is a perception, whether real or not, that the community has not had an opportunity to consult concerns me, so I am prepared to support a delay in the implementation of this ACTCode. I think that we do need to have a set timeframe. I am quite comfortable with the government or PALM undertaking some more consultation and then reporting back to this Assembly. I have an amendment to Mr Corbell's motion which I think would do that. I am just giving notice of it. I will move it after Ms Tucker's amendment is finished with and I get the nod from you, Mr Speaker.

I am concerned about what Mr Corbell has had to say about consultation. I am quite comfortable with delaying the implementation of this ACTCode. I am also concerned about the way that Mr Corbell wants to move from here. At the end of the day, we in this place will have to make a decision on what the government has put forward and everybody in here will have to vote on the body of it. I am quite comfortable with allowing PALM or the government to undertake some more consultation.

The fact that there is a perception that there are people who feel that they have not had the opportunity to have some input concerns me. I appreciate the government's concern about wanting to move ahead. Mr Smyth has informed me that people within the department have been working on this ACTCode for a number of years, so I have kept the extra consultation period quite short-to a period of three months-so that there is an opportunity for us to make a decision on what the government is proposing sooner rather than later.

MR RUGENDYKE (9:13): As usual, this issue has created a few dilemmas for all of us in this chamber. It is about a large document that most of us have seen for the first time during this process. I think that has spooked some of us. The reason it appeared on our desks in the last few days, according to the Planning Authority when I spoke to it, is as a matter of courtesy in a way. Also, we are seeing it for the first time through Mr Corbell's motion, for which I have some sympathy.

It worries me that such a large document appears to be being rushed through this process but, in reality, it has been going on for two or three years in various forms. It has been out for public consultation of sorts. Some will not be satisfied with that, and I can understand that. Concerns by five people have resulted in very little change to the document as it has appeared here today.

I have major concerns with section master plans. Through out planning committee, we have seen problems with group centre master plans and I have no reason to suspect that section master plans would create less of a problem. It is wise to proceed with caution in these matters. I have been given an assurance by the minister that no section master plan would be signed off until it has been through the urban services committee. I am still in

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