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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2714 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Hird is going to say to us shortly, I am sure, that he did not need to call for public submissions on this variation because he had done that in a previous inquiry. Mr Speaker, if Mr Hird is going to use that logic, there is absolutely no point in the Planning and Urban Services Committee ever calling for public submissions again on any other draft variation to the Territory Plan, because he could just as easily say, "Planning and Land Management have called for comment. Planning and Land Management have had public consultation. Why do we need to do it again?"

There is a very clear reason, Mr Speaker, why there is a two-stage consultation process, and that is that the Assembly has given a legal power, under the land act, to a standing committee of this place to conduct inquiries separate from the consultation process conducted in any other place. So Mr Hird cannot rely on work that has been done previously, because it is not relevant to the process that he is obliged to undertake as a member of the standing committee charged with the consideration of draft variations to the Territory Plan.

Mr Hird has not only thrown that very important responsibility out of the window; he also has chosen to throw out of the window any capacity to ensure that the Planning and Urban Services Committee remains a workable committee. He has done that in light of political expedience. He has done that simply because he has got his riding instructions from the government. That is the plain fact of the matter. He has got his riding instructions from the government. He is not an independent chair. He is not a chair looking for consensus and a bipartisan vote. He is simply carrying out the orders he was given. He has undermined the responsibilities that this committee has under the act.

As Mr Kaine said, what is there to say it is not going to happen again? What is there to say that this is not going to become a precedent? On controversial draft variations, if you have the numbers, you do not have to consult. That is a pretty unacceptable approach, Mr Speaker. I know that you, Mr Speaker, as someone who has taken an interest in planning issues in the past, particularly as an opposition spokesperson on planning, are very aware of the sensitivity relating to people being denied the opportunity to have their say on planning matters.

The proposal put forward by Ms Tucker today is an unusual one, but it is an important one, because on controversial proposals to vary the Territory Plan the committee has a clear obligation-that is, to conduct an inquiry, and to conduct an inquiry with procedural fairness. Before a committee makes up its mind as to what exactly the issues are, it should ask people to let them know what the issues are, and that is what calling for public submissions is all about.

As I said earlier, Mr Speaker, I would have had no difficulty if the majority of members, having called for public submissions and viewed those public submissions, had decided that there was no new information and on balance there was no need for public hearings and would proceed to report. The committee would have been able to gauge whether there were new issues, whether there were new concerns, or whether there were residents who had not previously had the opportunity to comment and wanted to take that opportunity, and had expected to be able to take that opportunity through the normal processes of this committee.

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