Page 1984 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the land act. In relation to the points Dr Foskey raised, the groups to be consulted according to clause 60 are the groups with a statutory role. We would consult with other groups, such as some of the ones she listed, under section 62 of the act.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (5.10): We support clause 60. As the minister has pointed out, clause 60 sets out the statutory consultations, and clause 62 sets out the broader consultation with the community on the draft plans. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. You can have all of the consultation settings you like in the legislation but you cannot make a government genuinely consult. You can make them go through the motions, and putting in all sorts of extra clauses that make them go through more motions is not going to make them listen. You can have all the roundtables you like; the government can still ignore what the community says. We can sometimes get a little obsessed with what is in some of these clauses. I would say that we are pretty comfortable with these consultation clauses as they are. As I say, it is then up to governments to genuinely listen to the feedback. Legislation cannot make them do that; it can only make them go through certain motions. If they want to ignore the community, they will face the consequences at the ballot box. So we will be supporting the clause and not supporting Dr Foskey’s opposition.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.12): I will be opposing this clause. My concerns apply not just to this clause but to the rest of this part, but I will cover those concerns in my comments on clause 62. In the first instance, a 15-working-day consultation period is inadequate. We could talk for a long time about who ought to be notified about a variation to the plan and to be given sufficient time to consider the proposal, to seek further information and to place their views on the record. Six weeks is reasonable for a variation to the territory plan. Four weeks, if well promoted, might be long enough, but 15 working days is insufficient. Letting the public know through a public announcement advertisement in the Canberra Times is also manifestly inadequate. There are many ways to advise people of proposed variations to the territory plan. I hope ACTPLA will take it upon itself to be more rigorous in the methods it uses to inform relevant communities of future developments.
In the past few years we have seen that the authority and the government do not believe they have obligations to communicate with their constituents other than by following statutory requirements. The disgraceful process surrounding the siting and construction of Telstra’s wireless network towers is a salutary example of the lack of commitment demonstrated in the past. Given that, the statutory consultation requirement ought to be substantially greater so that the minimum is enough. The provision for the authority to remain secretive about a proposed variation to the plan—it should be called the Karralika provision—is absolutely unacceptable in its current form. The rationale for keeping mum about any proposed variation ought, at the very least, to be articulated. The processes for consultation and community engagement across legislation are neither good nor consistent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .