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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2583 ..

The government, as I have outlined, has great confidence in the planning authority, its chief planner and its staff to deliver the reform program that we have embarked upon, a reform program that has been only half completed. Unlike any other government in this place, we have put planning in a policy position that it has not occupied before. We have recognised its significance as a tool to drive economic, social, cultural and environmental sustainability in this city. We have recognised it as a key element in the future success and growth of this city and we have invested in it to deliver those outcomes. I am confident that the foundations we have laid, the strategic directions we have established and the reforms we continue to implement will stand this city in great stead for many years to come.

MR CORNWELL (9.38): In speaking in support of Ms Tucker’s amendments, it is simply not good enough to make a claim that these amendments should not be put forward simply because a couple of hundred applications are received each year from people who are not happy with the planning process. This is part of the problem of this government; it totally forgets you are dealing with people—flesh and blood. You are not dealing with some esoteric argument. This is part of the problem. It does not matter. How often have we heard in this place that if only one person, or two people, can be saved or helped, then it will be worth while. I would think that, if it is 200, or even 20, it is still worth while reforming this process. That is what we are moving on tonight.

MRS DUNNE (9.40): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Order! You are closing debate?

MRS DUNNE: Yes.

MR SPEAKER: Would everybody please be quiet while Mrs Dunne proceeds to close the debate?

MRS DUNNE: I will speak to Ms Tucker’s amendments. If no-one else wishes to speak, I will close the debate at the same time. As I said before, I think Ms Tucker’s amendments to (2) (c) are more finely nuanced than my original version. I made the point that perhaps the wording in the original draft was a little heavy handed. I do not want to give the impression that this is about “monstering” the chief planning executive. It is far from that; it is having an open discussion. I would like to go to some of the points about that in a moment. I am a bit betwixt and between but, on balance, I think we should support Ms Tucker’s first amendment as well. We can be gracious on these things. That is a lesson some people need to learn.

Much of what has happened as a result of the passing of the planning and land act is good. I started out with that. I said that the Liberal opposition opposed the passage of the bill not because we were just opposed but because we thought it was the wrong time—it was not the right time to do it and there were other things that should happen before—the same as the Liberal opposition opposed the implementation of draft variation 200 at the time. We thought it was the wrong time to be looking at residential land use policy when we had not done the spatial plan. As a result of the spatial plan we are going to have to basically undo vast streams of variation 200, as the minister foreshadowed in the first place. The Liberal opposition is not opposed to much of what happens there.

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