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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Thursday, 5 August 2004) . . Page.. 3545 ..

is extrinsic material. When we all sit down to apply the legislation we will be bound by a flowchart in a revised explanatory statement,” which, by the way, is already out of date. A new version was circulated to me yesterday, I think. No. In fairness, it was given to me by hand on Monday and an electronic version was sent some time after that. The extrinsic material at the back of the revised statement is already out of date.

This is what we are supposed to trust in. We are supposed to trust the minister that this process, which is neither simple nor straightforward and has more arrows than Legolas’s quiver, will make the planning process simple and straightforward. When I asked the heritage officials about this process and expressed my concerns I specifically asked about what I hoped would be one of the great policy developments in the area of land planning approval that has developed in Australia over the last little while. I asked them how this process fitted together with the development assessment forum run by the planning and local government ministers.

I said, “How does this fit with that?” My question was returned with blank looks. So I explained what DAF was. I got an answer that said, “Mrs Dunne, it doesn’t fit with DAF. We have not really thought about it.” I thought, “Perhaps I am the first person to raise this.” On that very day I received a submission that was provided by the property council, the MBA, the HIA, the property institute, Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all. The first concern raised was that the proposed development approval process was inconsistent with the national approach as portrayed in DAF. So I was not the first person to raise this with them; I was not speaking gobbledygook. In fact, this is something they should have addressed, but it has not been addressed. Because of this the Liberal opposition cannot support this bill.

That was my original and principal concern but, over the past week or 10 days, my concern has switched to indigenous heritage issues. This is where I come to the consideration that I have to say some harsh words. I find that the treatment meted out to me and to members of the community in the course of the discussions over this bill has been absolutely and utterly reprehensible. I asked straightforward questions and I have been given assurances, both verbally and in writing, about levels of consultation—that people have been consulted. When I checked back with those people I was told by some of them that they have not in fact been consulted.

I am going to have to do a little bit of “chapter and verse” here. Quite frankly, I am in the situation where one side tells me one thing and another group of people is telling me something completely contradictory. In a sense, I cannot judge. All I know is that there is a big problem here, that the officials—

Mr Wood: Come and talk to me and spell it out, chapter and verse.

MRS DUNNE: I will spell it out in a moment. I have been told that the officials, the personal political staff in the minister’s office and the minister himself said, “We need to pass this bill. This is a fantastic bill; it is the greatest bill since sliced bread.” The heritage council came to me. They wrote to me—and they wrote to members—and told me that. I questioned the propriety of the heritage council writing in such a way—in an almost political way—because they are direct beneficiaries of this. They were involved in the process; they were part of the process; and they are direct beneficiaries. In

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