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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1334 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

purposes? Who divided the planning function and the land management function? It was not the Labor Party and it was not done by this bill. This government did when it started doing its audit of private open space, work done not by the planning agency but by the Department of Treasury, the bean counters.

Mr Speaker, it is appropriate that we strike a balance in this legislation between elected government and planning advocacy through an independent planning office. We are not in a period in the history of this city where there is an all-benevolent dictatorship guarding and guiding the planning and development of the city. We have self-government. We have the responsibility to govern ourselves on almost all matters and we have the capacity and the responsibility to make sure that we do that in an accountable way. Therefore, Mr Speaker, we cannot have a situation where planning, which is by its very essence a public activity, is entirely separated from the views, the perspectives and the election commitments of elected governments and other members of this place, so we need to strike a balance.

Dr Gleeson makes the point very well that what my bill establishes is a public, independent advocate who can be directed in the performance of his or her duties, but can only be directed in a transparent and accountable way in accordance with set guidelines and overall policy directives. That is the balance that we have had to strike and that is the appropriate balance in the context of self-government in our city.

Mr Smyth went on to talk about a few other things as well. He talked about the Australian National Development Assessment Forum. I am aware of the forum, but I do not know whether other members of this place are. Mr Smyth makes the point that it is about something which has enormous impacts for our city. If it has such enormous impacts for our city and has important ramifications for decisions we take about planning, why has Mr Smyth not told us about what his government has been talking about at that forum? Why has he not reported to the Assembly on what undertakings his government has made at that forum? Why has he not said that this forum does have important ramifications for our city and he wants to tell the Assembly and the community about it?

The reality is that he has not. The reality is that he has failed to do that. I believe that that only enhances my argument that planning is done in a secretive way to suit the interests overwhelmingly and solely of the market. In fact, the sort of approach that Mr Smyth is taking in relation to forums such as the Australian National Development Assessment Forum only undermines the role of planning as a public activity and only continues to further alienate ordinary citizens from the policies, guidelines and perspectives that guide the form and function of their city and home. I think that Mr Smyth argues a case for a more independent, responsible and transparent planning system rather than the proposal that he has put up today.

I would like to respond to some of Mr Osborne's comments as well. Mr Osborne makes the point that he would prefer to see a fully blown independent planning authority. So would the Labor Party, and the Labor Party will be proposing such a policy at the next election. But we also believe that it is appropriate to start taking steps towards achieving that and that it would be negligent of an opposition not to put forward proposals that seek to meet those policy objections. That is why we have proposed what I have always

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