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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3951 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

So what is this minister hiding? What does he really mean to do? Where are the statutory rules and protocols that underpin this legislation? They are, as the minister says, essential components. But we don't know what they are, and so far this minister has failed to enlighten us. We are now being asked to pass a very significant law, and the matters under this law we have not been able to consider. It is simply not a responsible approach, and this Liberal opposition opposes it.

You will hear what the minister says about these arrangements, but it really boils down to not much more than: "Trust me, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you " I have to ask the question: has this minister actually worked through these protocols himself? Does he know what is in them? And is this why he is unwilling to tell us?

This is symptomatic of much of what is wrong with the bill, and much of what underpins this opposition's concern. The criticisms, not just from the opposition but from wide sections of the planning and building community, are not being addressed by this minister and this government. This may be a blueprint for the future but half of it is missing. Because half of it is missing, I move the following amendment to the motion:

Omit all words after "That", substitute the following words:

"whilst not declining to agree to the Bill in principle, the Assembly condemns the Planning Minister for failing to provide all supporting statutory rules so as to allow the Assembly to make an informed decision about whether the total package deserves support".

I commend the amendment to the house.

MS TUCKER (5.03): I do not want to support the amendment, but can I speak to the motion that the bill be agreed to in principle as well?

MR SPEAKER: Yes, sure.

MS TUCKER: Thanks. It is no secret that the Greens support the establishment of an independent planning authority in the ACT and the return of land development to the government. These have been in our urban planning policy since we were elected in 1995, and I am glad that the ALP has also seen the sense in these policies. These policies represent a return to Canberra's tradition of urban planning that has created the beautiful city that we now enjoy. Canberra had for many years a reputation for being at the forefront of urban planning, which unfortunately started to go astray after self-government, and particularly during the time of the Liberal government with its developer-led planning.

Unlike most cities in the world, Canberra was created from a plan-the visionary plan of Walter Burley Griffin, which integrated the monumental aspects of the national capital with its mountain and bushland setting. This was implemented, with various changes, in the first half of the 1900s, but started to lose momentum during the war years.

We then have to thank Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies for revitalising the planning of Canberra through the creation in the 1950s of the National Capital Development Commission, or NCDC for short. Under the NCDC the planners were able to apply their professional judgments to the planning of Canberra, largely independently

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