Page 953 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 26 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
sort in the days of the NCDC, despite its being downgraded to subcommittee status towards its end. I understand it has now been changed. However, it should be given an opportunity to comment, particularly as the current chairman of that committee represents at least half the residents as the member for Fraser.
We are also concerned to ensure that these organisations which participated in the election but which were not successful should be offered an opportunity to participate in this important decision making process. After all, we are producing a plan for the future development of our city. We must ensure that we get it right from the start. Clearly it is also appropriate that the first matter to be referred to the committee should be such an important issue. I know my colleague Mrs Nolan wants to refer to the same standing committee the issue of front fences, though I am sure that even she admits that the terms of reference, responsibilities and powers of our new planning authority should take precedence.
I commend this motion to the Assembly, Mr Speaker, and trust that it will get the unanimous support of members, who I am sure are committed to good planning procedures for the future. I have heard that the minority Government may be opposing this motion, and if this is so I will await with interest its response.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister) (12.15): I fear that Mr Jensen's trust is indeed misplaced if he expects the Government to support this motion. It is misplaced in this matter and indeed in quite a few others as well. I will be relatively brief, Mr Speaker, in opposing this motion. The basic difficulty that the Government has with it is that it attempts to refer to the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure a task which is the Government's by law. If you look at the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 it will become abundantly clear that the Government is obliged to do just what Mr Jensen is asking the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure to do. It seems to me that that is a duplication of effort, that it could be very wasteful of resources and of the time of people taking an interest in planning issues in the ACT.
I am sorry to be opposing this motion, because I know of the very great interest in planning in the ACT that is current at the moment. That interest is shared not just by the Residents Rally, not just by other parties in this Assembly, but of course it is very widespread throughout the ACT community. It is quite legitimate for groups with an interest to expect that they will be able to express a view on the planning of the ACT. The Government will encourage that. We have a genuine commitment to open government. We have a genuine commitment to consultation with people who will be affected by this legislation. It is certainly not my intention to deny people full debate on this important issue, but I do think that it is only
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .