Page 1782 - Week 05 - Thursday, 2 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am also extremely interested in what the current suggestions are for further planning reform, especially relating to whole-of-government processes. Generally the Greens are supportive of whole-of-government processes, as there are a number of issues which have come up which concern partly ACTPLA and partly other departments but where the two or more departments do not always seem to communicate effectively. This can and has been very frustrating to the stakeholders involved. So we are supportive of the proposal to establish a major projects unit within ACTPLA, especially if it communicates with the Chief Minister’s major projects unit.
In conclusion, the Greens are supportive of the general changes introduced in the new territory plan and I would like to echo Mr Barr’s statement that climate change changes everything. But, unfortunately, it does not seem to have changed our planning system. The Greens look forward to being part of making these changes happen.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (12.09): I thank the Assembly for the opportunity to speak to the very important issue of planning in the ACT. It is worth reflecting on the minister’s statement, particularly early on when he tried to frame what it was about and what it was not about. Clearly what it was not about was Labor’s record on planning. There was very little of any detail or substance on that. What it was about was trying to politicise planning by saying, “We are taking the politics out of planning.” It was quite an extraordinary statement and it is worth reflecting on some of the minister’s words. The way in which he managed to deliver them without a hint of embarrassment is quite extraordinary.
Just after saying that Labor in Canberra will always hold the middle ground he says that he wants to take the politics out of planning; planning is not going to be political under him, but Labor is always right. He has the temerity to point to how Labor is always right and how Labor always takes the middle ground in planning by pointing to Wollongong. He points to Wollongong as an example of how Labor is right on planning. Who was in charge in Wollongong? I believe it was a number of Labor councillors who were getting into dodgy and corrupt dealings which corrupted the planning system. Apparently, not only is he not going to play politics with us but also he is going to point to how Labor councillors acting corruptly on planning issues is an example of how Labor holds the middle ground. If that is the middle ground, I wonder where is the left and where is the right. Where are the extremes if corrupt behaviour in Wollongong is the middle ground?
The framing of the argument was quite extraordinary. He made the statement that he wants to take the politics out of planning and went on to say that Labor is always right. He then said that we did not want to be like Wollongong where Labor was in charge and managed to corrupt the process. As a logical statement, we need to frame our debate around what we are debating here. It is really reducing politics to slogans. The minister says: “We’re going to take it out. We’re not going to be like Wollongong. We’re not going to be like those corrupt Labor councillors in Wollongong. We’re going to take the politics out of it. It is all about evidence-based policy.”
The minister went on to assert, I think on about eight separate occasions, that the planning system is becoming “simpler, faster and more effective” under the Labor
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .