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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2584 ..

I have to go back and say about the issues raised in the first instance by the minister that the changes to the AAT in particular are brilliant changes, and we need to acknowledge those. The introduction of mediation has been a great innovation. My only concern is that mediation does not happen earlier in the process—that people have to appeal the process before we get to mediation. It is a great process, if it works. The certainty of having a 120-day turnaround is also a great improvement. I will acknowledge those improvements, even though that discomfits the members opposite.

I think the minister gave the figure that, from the experiences people have had, 76 per cent of people who go to mediation solve their problems. A case has been pointed out to me. It was a very contentious case that went on for some time; it eventually got to the AAT and the people who were objecting had to sit down and mediate. Then, lo and behold, it was discovered that the people who were objecting looked at the plans for the very first time. They were objecting out of ignorance and perhaps out of prejudice, I have to say. They had gone all through this process and it had taken months and months.

Mr Wood: Tell Mr Cornwell that!

MRS DUNNE: I have told Mr Corbell that. They then looked at the plans and said, “Oh, we do not really have a problem with that either!” I would like to see mediation brought into the process earlier, so that we do not have to go to the AAT to solve the problems of people who perhaps do not know how to read a plan—perhaps they have not had anyone explain it to them—then we might have fewer cases in the AAT.

Good things have happened but the minister has to be careful not to believe his own rhetoric—that because he has passed this piece of legislation, everything is fine in the garden. This motion here tonight says that everything is not fine in the garden; that we would like it to be better and we want to work cooperatively with it. I have to say that some of the condescending stuff that this minister said about what members of this place might do if they had unfettered access to the chief planning executive was a disgrace; it was condescending and it was absolutely out of order—sorry, not out of order. It was inappropriate and an insult to all members of this place. The idea that, because a member of this place may want to seek advice from the chief planning executive, they are trying to exert undue political influence is an insult.

Mr Corbell: You are the master of those! It takes a master to know one!

MR SPEAKER: Order! I know everybody wants to get involved in this exchange of pleasantries but please, order! Mrs Dunne has the floor.

MRS DUNNE: It is an insult. It is also an insult to the chief planning executive because this is about a highly qualified person who is highly regarded in this community. But the only people in this community who really cannot have a conversation with him are the non-government members of this place. There are other statutory planning officers in regards to whom it is no trouble for us to pick up a phone and say, “Can you give me advice on this?” End of story. That is how it should work on this occasion.

The minister has in fact hoist himself on his own petard because, by his own words, he created a hybrid that also gives him policy advice. That is why the planning and

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