Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (26 March) . . Page.. 630 ..

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am not sure that dealing with affairs of the Opposition falls within the boundaries of the Minister's portfolio responsibility.

MR SPEAKER: Order! I do not uphold the point of order. The Minister concerned is the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning. We are talking about LAPACs, as I understand it.

MR HUMPHRIES: There is criticism here of our policy on local area planning. Of course I am the man to answer the question. I know that those opposite are confused about exactly who is spokesman. Mr Wood was spokesman the week before Ms Follett appeared to be; Ms Follett appeared to be the week before last, when this release came out; but I understand that Ms McRae is spokesman. I do not really know what is going on. Ms Reilly will probably get the job at the end of the day because, obviously, no-one else over there wants it. I commend it to you, Ms Reilly.

Let me say that this very confusing press release came out. The effect of it was to attack the Government for asking developers and residents to sit down together and talk to each other about proposed claims. I must say that I am absolutely enthralled by the logic behind that press release. The fact is that so much of the problem which beset the Follett Government in the area of planning occurred because there was not discussion between local people and people proposing changes in their areas. That lack of discussion, that lack of consultation, at the area where it mattered most, was the hallmark of problems in that former Government's life. What is more, that point is realised, I think, by Mr Wood - belatedly perhaps - in the comments that he made when the Government announced that the LAPACs were being introduced. He said, in great contrast to what Ms Follett has subsequently said:

The concept of LAPACs has been agreed by all groups, including the Labor Party, because it is seen as a proper measure to ensure that the community's voice is heard.

He went on to say that direct discussion between those two parties, between people proposing changes and the residents themselves, was appropriate. Mr Wood was right; but Ms Follett now comes along and says, "No, no, no; governments should stand in between those two groups and not allow residents and developers to talk to each other". That is a very strange philosophy indeed, and a great explanation, if we needed one, of why those opposite are opposite rather than over here.

Ms Follett also has the gall to criticise us in this release for the resourcing of LAPACs, saying that they need to be better resourced. Unfortunately, she did not bother to read her own local newspaper, which would have told her about a week before this release came out that local area planning advisory committees had welcomed a decision by the Government to increase resources to the LAPACs, including an additional full-time officer serving the committees and extra secretarial support. I think all three LAPACs have now welcomed that decision. Ms Follett should apologise to the Planning Authority for not doing her homework; she should apologise to Mr Wood for contradicting him; she should apologise to Ms McRae for benching her in the debate; and she should apologise to all the hardworking LAPAC members for her arrogant and patronising attitude to their work.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .