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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (21 June) . . Page.. 2365 ..

MR CORBELL: Mr Rugendyke seems to be getting into a lather. But he has missed the point-and I will spell this out very clearly-that this parliament can reject proposals to spend money; it cannot initiate proposals to spend money. What are we doing today with Mr Berry's amendment? We are rejecting, not initiating.

Mr Deputy Speaker, that is pretty straightforward. Let me make it even simpler. We can say no, but we cannot say "more". It is that simple. We would like to say "more" in respect of greenhouse gas initiative projects but we cannot. So we will make the point in the debate. In relation to free school bus travel, we are saying that we do not think that money should be spent, and that is what Mr Rugendyke seems to fail to understand.

Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a allocation of $15,000 for the commercial sector energy efficiency improvement program, in contrast to $125,000 for the fit-out of Macarthur House. There is also an amount of $40,000 for community awareness of greenhouse issues, an initiative which in contrast is only a third of that being spent on the government's own building. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, again this government has misplaced priorities.

I want to conclude my comments by briefly mentioning some planning issues. Under this government we have seen continued cuts to the planning agency, to the extent that even the development industry recognises that PALM is not resourced to do the job it is required to do under law.

The government has not developed any vision for the restructuring and the reassertion of public sector planning in our city. The government does not support local area planning advisory committees, which are needed to ensure that community consultation can work effectively and properly. We see no money in this budget to properly support that very important element. Instead, the government has been obsessed with seeking to sell off our areas of urban open space, green space, playing fields and ovals.

Who can forget that only 12 months ago the government was busily running around denying that it wanted to sell off our surplus ovals. Remember that one? The government was wanting to sell off our ovals for housing. The government said that it was a mistake. The government said it did not really mean to say that. Well, if it did not mean to say it, why was it in the documents?

I want to make the point that the government have not developed any serious credibility in respect of reasserting planning as a public function that demonstrates leadership and vision for the city. They have not recognised the values that our community has in relation to the built form of our city and those elements that people want to see retained and enhanced. Nor have they demonstrated that they are serious about planning, because they have failed to properly resource our planning agency to do its job. They have not demonstrated leadership in terms of setting conditions, standard and outcomes for individual development projects or for the planning system overall.

We have seen some piecemeal measures-measures that start to head in the right direction but which are very much uncoordinated. Without a properly resourced agency to implement them, the objectives cannot be achieved to the extent that the government would wish.

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