Page 1401 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The most interesting thing that Mr Gentleman said in his very, very short statement was that there were no major issues. I cannot imagine, if you are looking at the operations of the Commissioner for the Environment, the Planning and Land Authority, Territory and Municipal Services and the Land Development Agency, that there are no major issues. When I joined this committee and I saw the first draft of this report, although I had not had the opportunity to attend most of the hearings because I was not then a member of the committee, I was stunned that there were almost no recommendations in that first draft.
There are some recommendations that are here at my suggestion. I thought it was reasonable that we should have some recommendations on some of the issues that arose in the report. What occurred here seems to be more and more the case. A chairman’s draft was prepared that said, “We can’t say anything difficult that might upset the minister for the environment, the Minister for Planning or the minister for urban services, so we won’t say anything at all.”
The fact is that the chairman of the planning and environment committee said here today that his committee has taken the time to look at the annual reports for all of these places, covering all of these areas that are vital to the people of the ACT. In the area of land allocation, we have real problems because of the failure of the government over successive years—over 6½ years—to be responsive to the needs of the ACT in relation to land allocation; yet he, as the chairman of the planning and environment committee, says that there were no major issues.
He should be concerned. If he is concerned about issues relating to the housing affordability of working families in this territory, he, as the chairman of the committee, should be directing the committee in particular ways—not by saying, “We must do it like this,” but perhaps by saying: “There is an issue with housing affordability. What can we do in our inquiry into the annual reports of the Land Development Agency to tease out the issue of housing affordability?” But no, he does not do that, because the performance of the Chief Minister in relation to housing affordability is so bad that if he teases it out, he will be in a situation where he embarrasses his leader. He is not prepared to do that, because it is much better that we have an embarrassing policy than for him to point out that we have an embarrassing policy.
It goes on. There are issues in relation to drought and climate change. This member, who is apparently interested in climate change issues and has his own personal interests, which are laudable, did not address these issues directly in the inquiry or in his chairman’s draft. What we see here is essentially a chairman’s draft which has been expanded a little bit after I joined the committee. The chairman’s draft arrived at about the time that I joined the committee. I took the somewhat difficult approach of saying, “Look, I’m sorry, I haven’t been here for most of this inquiry, but this is pretty thin on the ground.” And it still is thin on the ground. It is so thin on the ground that the chairman of the committee has nothing to say in his tabling statement and in speaking to his motion that we note this report, except to say that there were no major issues.
I am gobsmacked that the chairman of the planning and environment committee can look through the annual reports of the department of urban services, at sustainable
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .