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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (2 September) . . Page.. 1846 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

but we are not seeing that commitment followed through. Indeed, we are seeing the promises and the commitments made by one of the Government's members, Mr Cornwell, being ignored by this Government in the capital works project.

It seems to me that the Gungahlin public library is another victim of the Government's axe in looking to save money in this year's budget. We had the Chief Minister standing up earlier and saying, "We are not interested in process". Well, we are interested in process, Chief Minister. We are interested in a feasibility project being undertaken, but that was meant to be completed before this year's capital works budget was prepared. In this year's capital works budget there was going to be a commitment to build that library because the population level in Gungahlin warranted a facility of that type, according to the department's own criteria.

It is quite unacceptable for members of the Government to run around the Gungahlin community and say, "Look how good we are; we are putting out money for a public library and it is going to happen", and then, in this year's capital works program, when it was committed, that was not forthcoming. That was a very disappointing outcome also.

Overall, the Department of Urban Services delivers many very important services to the Canberra community. I want to return to the point I began with, the issue of planning. Planning, I believe, is one of the most fundamental elements of administration in the Territory because it is about delivering social justice values to the Territory and good planning outcomes to the Territory. What we have seen since this Government was returned in February is, I believe, an arrogant and deliberate attempt to undermine and gut the operations of the Planning and Land Management Group.

First of all, we have seen the removal of the land allocation function, not to an independent and statutory authority, which was what Stein recommended - if there is any justification it should be the Stein recommendations - but to the Chief Minister's Department, so that the Chief Minister can use the land allocation function effectively as a political gift, if you like, within her portfolio. We now see a secret review of PALM, which we understand is looking at a reduction of a million dollars in operational costs within PALM. I am very concerned about the impact that that will have on PALM's ability to undertake effective planning outcomes in the Territory. We have seen staff demoralised and ignored in respect of the expertise that they can give on issues such as leasing. The whole Hall/Kinlyside episode demonstrates just how effectively PALM has been removed from the decision-making processes in the Territory. Planning decisions effectively are being made within the Chief Minister's Department, not where they belong, with the planners in the Planning and Land Management Group.

Finally, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, it is with wry amusement that I note today that the Chief Minister has confirmed that the Office of Asset Management will now be administered by her deputy Mr Humphries, as Minister Assisting the Treasurer, because of Mr Humphries's expertise in planning matters. What does that say about the Minister for planning? What does that say about the Minister for planning's expertise in planning matters? Or does it simply highlight that the Minister for planning, just like PALM, has been sidelined in this Government?

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired.

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