Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1330 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
a sham. As Mr Moore pointed out on the ABC on 20 February, how can the chief planner appointed under this model be held accountable if the chief planner's decisions can be varied by the Assembly? If the Assembly does not intervene in any decision of the chief planner, the members themselves are accountable. The proposal simply does not sit well with the Westminster system of government.
Mr Speaker, there are many other examples of inconsistencies in the bill. But let us look at Mr Corbell's intentions here. I refer to an article in the Canberra Times of Sunday, 25 February, which states:
Although praising the talents of the PALM planners, Mr Corbell decried the culture of present-day government which he said expected nothing less than politically correct advice from its bureaucrats.
Mr Corbell went on to say:
We have very good planners in PALM, but they've been ignored, and that's the real problem.
Let us look at the latest example of planners being ignored and who ignored them. Mr Corbell himself did so. It is the planners that put together the revision of ACTCode. The planners spent three years or more putting it together. They had lots of consultation and they did a vast amount of good work, some of the good work that Mr Corbell says the good planners in PALM do. But who is the first to ignore them when it does not match his political agenda? It is Mr Corbell.
What could we expect from a Labor planning minister were the unfortunate circumstance to occur of Labor getting into government in October? Supposedly, he would be the planning minister and we would have an individual who would, on his own record, clearly ignore the advice of planners when it did not suit him. Mr Corbell went on to say that the reason we should have this independent planner is that, unfortunately, his Assembly colleagues just are not up to it. The article continues:
Mr Corbell points out that while the current Assembly line-up boasts a bevy of ex-policemen, a gaggle of former lawyers, one medal-winning accountant and a clutch of past public servants, it doesn't have any qualified planners in its ranks.
And that means it is planning in a vacuum.
If we are going to go on the qualification stakes, we do not have a doctor in the Assembly. Does that mean that we cannot make decisions on health? As Mr Wood is an ex-teacher, obviously we can make decisions on education. The proposal there is just ludicrous. This Assembly is charged by the people to represent them and make decisions. We are qualified by the fact that we have the trust of the people to make legislation and we should carry that out. But here is the clincher. In the article, the journalist then says:
Mr Corbell is quick to point out that although independent, the Chief Planner would be subservient to the planning Minister and the popularly elected Legislative Assembly ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .