Page 1777 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I fear that we are seeing a similar process occurring in the ACT, where the proportion of political donations that comes from development interests is quite considerable. The donations to the ACT Labor and Liberal parties in 2004-05, visible on the Australian Electoral Commission and Elections ACT websites, are testament to that. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table some documents from the Australian Electoral Commission and the Elections ACT websites.
MR SPEAKER: Is leave granted for the tabling of these documents?
Mr Corbell: Could Dr Foskey indicate to the Assembly what it is she is proposing to table?
DR FOSKEY: I sought leave to table documents from the AEC and the Elections ACT website in relation to donations received by political parties in the last two elections.
Leave granted.
DR FOSKEY: I table the following papers:
Australian Electoral Commission—registered political party annual returns 2005-2006.
Unfortunately the commonwealth’s new disclosure laws will make it more difficult to keep track of donations unless the political parties take it upon themselves to provide that level of transparency.
There is something of an inverse relationship between the level of political control over planning decisions and the health of a representative democracy. Planning is an area where process is extremely important and it is important that people have confidence that planning decisions are taken consistently and in accordance with predetermined rules and procedures. The Greens are not anti-development. But we do think that development should take place to further the interests of the community and minimise the adverse impacts on natural ecosystems. If this means that developments have to wait a reasonable time until any potential adverse consequences are identified and rectified, then so be it. That is not something to be ashamed of.
Governments should represent the interests of affected environments and communities with as much vigour as they exhibit in trying to smooth the way for developers and property investors. The playing field is tilted enormously anyway between the partial interests of developers and community and environmental interests. For a start, threatened and endangered species cannot apply for court injunctions. They need an altruistic champion who is willing to give up their time and money in order to defend them. Similarly, communities do not profit from opposing development applications that threaten their amenity. Again, it takes a few good people who are willing to sacrifice their own time and energy to defend the interests of those who do not necessarily have lobby groups, tax breaks and profit motives to push their own agendas.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .