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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 419 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

experience of doing community-based land planning in consultation with local residents and it is a very long, slow process, and it will not be achievable in the timeframe that the government has proposed.

Mr Corbell says that he was making a flippant remark when he said that PALM believes what he believes. All I can say is that there is a sense in which we need to be able to exert appropriate control over what goes on in planning outcomes in this territory-by "we" I mean this Assembly and the government-because that is one of the fundamental indicators of the quality of life in this territory. People look to this Assembly and the government of the day to make sure that planning outcomes are good outcomes.

Frankly, even if we did succeed somehow in this structure of creating a really independent planning authority, where would that leave this place in respect of its role to make sure that outcomes are appropriate? I am not sure and, frankly, I am not sure that the minister is, either. I echo the concerns raised by Mrs Dunne here. I think we have a most unclear picture and I confidently predict that a great deal of what the Labor Party is promising here simply cannot be delivered, just as they have promised to build the Gungahlin Drive extension to the old government's timetable but have an environmental impact statement, but have consultation, but move the route, et cetera, saying that all those things can take place at the same time. They cannot, they will not, and we will see that in due course.

MR SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

MS TUCKER (4.20): I wish to speak briefly to this matter. We are having a good discussion about the general approach to planning. I will pick up Mr Humphries' comments and then go to the slightly confusing arguments of Mrs Dunne. I agree with the concern of Mr Humphries about the proposed independent planning authority. Obviously, there would be concerns, if the planning authority were independent, about where that leaves the role of the parliament or of the government, for that matter. Policy has to rest with this place. I am hoping that that is understood by Mr Corbell. I am assuming that it is.

Mr Humphries made much of the Harcourt Hill project. There is an important distinction that has to be made in talking about Harcourt Hill, that is, that it was not just a residential development. From my understanding, it was to have a hotel, country club, golf course and so on, so it was a commercial development. It was a situation in which government took on an entrepreneurial role, as the government did with Bruce stadium. It is slightly ironic that Mr Humphries speaks in such a condemning manner about Harcourt Hill, but does not point out that the role of government as an entrepreneur was a significant aspect of that failure. Of course, they were responsible for an horrendous failure of a similar kind.

The Greens are not supportive of government taking on that entrepreneurial role; it is very high risk. However, we are supportive of this government's proposal to take a greater role in land development. Getting to the point that I think Mrs Dunne is trying to make, I have to agree with Mr Corbell that there was a curious use of the notion of state planning. There was an inference that somehow there was a soviet or big brother kind of approach. That seemed to be a theme of what she was saying. On the other hand,

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