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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4177 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

The minister talked about a new model of governance. It is a new model of governance so long as it is convenient for the minister. In response to this amendment, he said it is not reasonable to hold this authority above all others. Yes, it is creating a precedent for this jurisdiction. It is not unprecedented that statutory authorities report on a regular basis, in a statutory way, to an appropriate committee. This does not make the statutory authority answerable to the committee, as Mr Hargreaves says. After all, as Mr Hargreaves knows, as chairman of a committee, he is nothing more than a cipher for the Assembly. He is a conduit for the Assembly.

We could have them appearing at the bar of the Assembly, but that would be highly inconvenient and not a very effective way of doing things. We have here a minister saying that the current reporting arrangements are adequate. For a minister who wants a new model of governance, I do not think that adequate is good enough. Is that all you want-just to be adequate?

You are trying to create an organisation which, by your own devices and your own policy statements, before the election and since, is to be independent. Yet, when it comes to real independence, you baulk, because really you still want it to be a creature of the minister. That was reinforced by the words of Mr Hargreaves. This is still not an independent authority, it is a creature of the minister of the day. By this amendment, we are proposing to make it less a creature of the minister of the day and more accountable to the Assembly.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations) (9.35): I find it ironic, Mr Speaker, that the Liberal Party, which is opposed tooth and nail to the establishment of a statutory planning authority, now advocates its independence.

The reality is that the authority is independent. It is independent in relation to its regulatory functions and its functions in relation to the implementation of policy. It has been very clear from day one-indeed from the day the Labor Party released its planning policy-that the policy-making power, when it came to planning, did not rest with the authority, it rested with the government of the day and the Assembly of the day, as it should. Elected representatives must make the policy. I do not think anyone-not even Mrs Dunne in her heart of hearts-would argue the contrary.

The issue here is: are we providing anything more in relation to the capacity of, say, the Planning and Environment Committee to undertake these functions? The answer is that we are. At the moment, the Planning and Environment Committee can call officers of PALM as witnesses to give advice on planning issues the committee is considering. They do that very well.

Mr Speaker, those officers of PALM are ultimately giving advice on the specific policy issues that the government has already determined. So, essentially, the officers are there presenting the government's position. I believe this bill, through the establishment of the Planning and Land Authority, provides an opportunity for the committee to question a statutory authority on what advice has been given to the government on, say, a particular draft variation.

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