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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1335 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

admitted is half a step. It is the first step towards achieving an independent planning agency.

It would be entirely possible, if this legislation were passed, for this government to separate the territory planning function of PALM, to establish an independent statutory office of chief planner and to set out the relationship between the Assembly and executive and that office. That is what this bill does. It would appear, however, that a majority of members are not prepared to support this bill today. I think that is a great tragedy, because we have seen over the past 12 to 18 months a resurgence in the level of community debate about planning in our city. We have seen a resurgence in community concern about the directions the city is taking. We have seen continued concern expressed about the approach that the government takes to involving the community in planning decisions and we have seen the lack of confidence that people in the community have in the present administration of planning.

I am disappointed to see people such as Michael Moore walk away from a bill like this. Michael Moore in particular has long stood in this place and argued for good planning principles. On this occasion he has walked away from that. I cannot see for what reason he has done that. I cannot accept that he believes that it is no longer necessary. Mr Speaker, that man actually put out a press statement on 27 June 1996 which said:

Mr Moore was right when he said that and he would still be right if he was still saying that.

The Labor Party, like any political party, has to review the operation of planning. It has to review the operation of any government agency and any process of administration. When we identify a problem with it, when we identify that decisions made in the past were not the appropriate decisions, we have to respond to it. That is what we are doing in this case. I would have thought that if anyone in this place understood that approach, it would be Mr Moore, the prince of politics, the man who reinvents himself at every election. I would have thought that he would understand why the Labor Party has come to this decision and I would have hoped that he would stand by his principles, but he has not.

What does Mr Moore propose? What does the man who has been the advocate of planning in this city for many years propose to improve the planning system in our city? Does he have any proposals? Have we seen any proposals from Michael Moore in the past 18 months or 2 years? Have we seen any advocacy on planning issues? Have we seen any comments that represent the constituency that time and again has elected him to this place? Have we seen anything from this man on that? The answer, disappointingly, is no. I would hope that people in the community will judge him on that, judge him on his failure to continue to advocate those principles that have seen him elected to this place time and again.

Mr Speaker, this is a good proposal. This is a proposal that the community is asking for. This is a proposal that the community is insisting upon, because it is a proposal that delivers transparency and an independent advocate, but with appropriate accountability

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