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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 218 ..

Mr Corbell’s amendment to be put today, he is committing to making all papers available.

I will be invoking standing order 133 in respect of these two motions, which are similar. They can then be dealt with seriatim and members will have an opportunity to vote on each issue. I will support the first two sections of Mrs Cross’s motion, which are basically asking for community consultation—as does Mr Smyth’s motion—rather than the use of the call-in powers. I will not support the third section of Mrs Cross’s motion because I prefer the tone of the third section of Mr Smyth’s motion—that it is appropriate for the Assembly to make its views felt about the use of regulation 12. I am not particularly interested in trying to force some kind of confession.

I am prepared to support all other sections of Mr Smyth’s motion except paragraph (6), which refers to rejecting the minister’s sham consultation, as the minister has given a commitment to open the facility up more. However, I will certainly be supporting the direction not to use the call-in powers. I find the question of the committee inquiry interesting. I appreciate the fact that Mr Smyth amended his own motion because I expressed concern about timing. I am happy to support Mr Smyth’s amendment, which is that if the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment is going to look at the matter of the Karralika development it report by 31 May, and that the committee also take the opportunity to look at the use of the call-in powers. Many people in the community are interested in how the call-in powers work and in how they were used in this instance. I will not be supporting Mr Corbell’s amendments. (Extension of time granted.)

I would like Mr Smyth to clarify, in his wrap-up, his intention in respect of the committee. I think I understand the point of the committee process. In some ways it is a post mortem. If I understand Mr Smyth’s argument correctly, the committee process is an opportunity for the community to discover exactly what the process was. I have experienced problems in trying to obtain information and papers. The committee can go through the process to find out what actually happened. There will also be an opportunity to look at the use of the call-in powers.

However, there is one aspect that I am not clear on. Are you saying, Mr Smyth, that while the committee inquiry is taking place, everything has to stop? Does the high quality sustainable design criteria process have to stop? Are you saying everything stops, or are you saying that the inquiry will be an opportunity to look at what has happened so far but that the process can continue? I think everyone would like to see something happen sooner rather than later. I would like clarification on that.

The last point I want to make is that the use of the call-in power gives the minister the opportunity to bring in a development—it stops all rights of appeal. That is why the Greens have never supported the use of the call-in powers. We believe that, if any development is worth its salt, it will go through the different stages of planning and appeal rights. We believe that, if it is a good development, it will be approved and, if it is not a good development, then it will not be approved.

I am not saying that our process is perfect—far from it. I could spend a lot of time here today talking about which parts of it are not working well, but at least we have a process in place. If the minister takes responsibility for that process, as he or she does through

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