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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2898 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

Running through my mind as I listen to the debate, and as I think about this motion, are the things that I have asked the minister to do on behalf of constituents of mine and others. I think of Mrs Gordon of North Lyneham, who had to walk through puddles to her retirement village unit. Apparently that is being addressed, and she is very happy.

I think of some people in Latham who, for three years or more, have been battling the process, doing the right thing. The problem for them is that they are up against the top end of town, the developer who will pull out all stops to build his monstrosity looking over their fence and into their bedroom. I have yet to hear how the minister will address their concerns, concerns about persistent problems that have been identified by these ordinary punters. These are problems that have been flick-passed to the Commissioner for Land and Planning, who simply says, "Rewrite the plans to make if fit."

We are yet to see the results of the review of that process, which may enable Mr Smyth, the minister, to take action under section 253 of the act to withdraw the developer's right to build a monstrosity because a misrepresentation has occurred in the report. I look forward to the outcome of that review. I suspect that, somehow, the top end of town will win.

It may well be that some deplorable things have happened within this portfolio to do with planning. Section 41 may well be deplorable. Kinlyside may well have been deplorable. Rural development in the ACT may well be deplorable. But this motion calls on the Assembly to deplore the entire record of the Minister for Urban Services in his failure to properly administer planning and land management in the territory.

On that score I will listen intently to the rest of the debate. In this era of benchmarking, we should benchmark the first two speeches in this place this morning as top quality, a benchmark that ought to be taken into consideration. I will listen carefully, cautiously and judiciously to the rest of the debate on that score.

The second part of the motion suggests that the usual suspects, who pop their heads up whenever they do not like seeing something appear on the other side of town, should be able to keep butting in to the extensions on Mr Moore's home, or other things. I do think that Canberrans have a right to participate in shaping the future of our city, and there are processes to allow that to happen. It does concern me, though, that some of the usual suspects-and we all know who they are-can delay, stall or stop a project simply because they have $130, a computer and too much time on their hands.

I will listen carefully to the rest of the debate and decide whether or not this Assembly ought to deplore the record of the minister.

MS TUCKER (11.27): The Greens obviously support the substance of this motion, because we have been very critical of the government's handling of planning issues ever since we entered this place in 1995.

Last week in question time, Mr Humphries made a remark that implied that the Greens were hypocritical in supporting urban consolidation in their urban planning policy, but opposing all the developments that the government had put up in recent years. I did make the point, then, that this government's approach to planning is so haphazard and ill-considered that proposals we are asked to support are unfortunately found to be

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