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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 225 ..

MR SPEAKER: I do not think any of us have, Mr Smyth.

MR SMYTH: I seek leave to make further comments on the debate.

Leave granted.

MR SMYTH: In the five or so years that I have been here, I do not believe we have dealt with a cognate motion; we have certainly dealt with cognate bills. I will take this opportunity to summarise a few things.

In his speech, the Minister for Health and Minister for Planning said that in no way was the government being sneaky. I reiterate that at the top of his press release of Saturday, 7 February, it is stated that the new planning process for the proposed Karralika redevelopment could not be fairer. That, in itself, is an admission that the old process was not fair. I think we all understand that, so I am not going to harp on it. It is interesting that the minister said that the department of health approached him as Planning Minister. I would have thought the correct process was for ministers to go through ministers. That might be a bit difficult when you are the same minister and end up talking to yourself. Let us be quite clear about this: the Health Minister should have, could have or would have approached the Planning Minister on this matter. I do not think it is appropriate to say that the department of health did so.

If that is the case, and that is the way it happened, then the minister needs to review his procedures so that ministerial responsibility is maintained and kept in the hands of the minister. Minister Corbell has proposed amendments which the opposition certainly will not be supporting. It is interesting that he is throwing up his hands and saying, “I don’t want to make this decision” and attempting to spread the blame. He is the minister and he gets paid for it. He is responsible for the act. In reality this is his act; this is his planning law. He changed the laws to give people a much fairer system—a system that has excluded all the residents of Fadden and Macarthur through the implementation and use of his own act. Asking the Assembly for their guidance is either abrogating his responsibility or saying that he is not up to making the decision himself, in which case he needs to question why he is the minister.

The minister also said that he wanted things done in a timely way. Everybody wants things done in a timely way; but when you hide things for almost nine months, they are not going to be timely when you get caught. People are going to be angry and demand that the process be reviewed and that the development be looked at. There is only one person to blame if a single place is held up by a single day—the minister. He is responsible. He said that he had been approached and that he had approved the process. If the process backfires on him, it is his fault. Don’t bring it back here and try to spread the blame at the Assembly and say that you now want the crossbenchers and the Liberals to help out. You are responsible, Minister. It goes to the notion at the real heart of ministerial responsibility: you take responsibility for your actions. You do not try to spread the blame, as seems to happen so often.

The plans were available in March and the minister could have consulted then. They were approved through the cabinet process and tabled in May. We have all been waiting for the plans. The consultation could have been done then. I understand the plans were

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