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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1329 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

been fully briefed on the outcome of this national work and the implications for Canberra? I fear that the answer is no. As the culmination of that significant body of work is about to take place, we should not be establishing what Mr Corbell purports to put together today. What we cannot have is the making of an important pre-emptive policy decision without knowing the merits of the model that will be proposed and it would be reasonable to delay passage of this bill, if it were likely to get up, today.

The other event will occur next week and it will be a very significant moment in the history of the city of Canberra. Next week in the National Museum of Australia, in the presence of the Governor-General, the Canberra community will celebrate 100 years of planning and development for one of the world's great planned cities. On behalf of the community, a draft statement on the future of Canberra will be presented to delegates of the Future Canberra conference. Also, the OECD will present its recommendations on the way forward to build on the success of the future Canberra process.

Why would we in this chamber have the audacity, in advance of both of those considerations, to adopt an untested model for planning administration in Canberra? Why would we not wait for the benefit of this advice? Where there are legitimate concerns about the current planning process, perhaps we should work collectively as an Assembly and take their advice, as best as possible, to ensure that Canberra's interests are protected. There is no evidence to suggest that what Mr Corbell offers is in Canberra's interests. Many of us in this place have heard use of the term "precautionary principle". It is used often in regard to planning. Surely we should show a bit of caution here today.

Going to the bill itself, there are a number of instances where it is either unclear or unworkable. It seeks to create the position of chief planner as an independent planner. What we have already in place following the implementation of the Stein report is PALM and then as an independent position, in this case a truly independent position, the position of Commissioner of Land and Planning was created, an independent decision maker on significant development proposals.

The aim of Mr Corbell's bill appears to be the restoration of the independence of decision-making on planning. The bill does not, in fact, create an independent chief planner as it does not provide the chief planner with the independence that the position needs to carry out its functions. The bill does not define the functions that the chief planner would carry out and, of course, the chief planner would remain subject to the direction of the minister and of the Assembly.

Some parts of this bill are inherently contradictory. The bill purports to strengthen the independence of the chief planner, but that is severely compromised by the proposed provisions for effective direction of the chief planner by the Assembly and the express obligation of the planner to comply with any direction. If the proposed chief planner is to be truly independent, if we are being genuine in this regard, surely the bill would provide that the chief planner not be subject to direction. Surely we would have the Auditor-General model, for example.

The Auditor-General Act provides at section 9 that the Auditor-General is not subject to direction by the executive or any minister in the performance of the functions of the Auditor-General. That is independence. What Mr Corbell offers here today is just

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