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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (11 April) . . Page.. 1016 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

My concern is that, in relation to this proposal, Mrs Dunne, without any clear understanding of the issue or any detailed analysis or detailed proposal, has already decided that the proposal is not a goer. I refer members to a TV report on WIN Television on 1 April this year-maybe it was an April fools trick-in which Mrs Dunne said, "This proposal is dead in the water before it starts." So much for taking a dispassionate and considered view of the proposal.

The point I make is that you have to practise what you preach. If you are going to take a different view to these issues, that is fine, but Mrs Dunne cannot have it both ways. Mrs Dunne cannot stand up in this place and say, "I am going to be dispassionate; I am going to look at the issue on its merits," when there is no proposal, when there is no indicative proposal even. What was Mrs Dunne's reaction? "It is dead in the water before it starts."

This government is going to take a more principled and objective view of all these proposals. We have concerns about density and height in residential areas. Those concerns are on the record and have been on the record for a considerable period of time, since well before the election. For Mrs Dunne to say one thing and do another is very hypocritical.

MRS CROSS: My supplementary question is: why, Minister, did you feel it necessary to shoot first and ask questions later on important development issues like Red Hill precinct, Charnwood High School, Deakin soccer oval, Kippax, et cetera?

MR CORBELL: I think the big difference is that with all those issues there had been an Assembly committee inquiry before we took a view. If I recall correctly, on each and every occasion there had been a detailed investigation by an Assembly committee or, in the absence of an Assembly committee investigation, there was a clear and detailed proposal on the table.

Let me take Red Hill as an example. Red Hill is the most significant area with large-scale blocks in a garden city environment in the Western world, according to one prominent expert from the University of Western Sydney. What did this mob opposite want to do? They said, "Let us subdivide it. Let dual occupancy run rampant through the area. Let dual occupancy completely destroy the heritage character of the suburb."

There was an Assembly inquiry into that issue. Expert evidence was presented to that inquiry, and on the basis of that investigation the then Labor opposition did the right thing and moved to protect the heritage aspects of old Red Hill. And guess what? We embarrassed that mob into it. It took a couple of times, but you were embarrassed into doing it, because you were copping too much flak on the issue.

If you are going to consider planning issues, you at least have to take the time to look at the detail of a proposal before you announce your position. You should not say on the basis of a public meeting, particularly when you are the chair of the Planning and Environment Committee, that it is dead in the water before it starts.

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