Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 4 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 894 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
I have had a swag of letters from community groups saying that these are good folk who are doing a great job and they want them to survive and we need to have them survive. I have been associated with Animals Afloat at things such as the launch for Ainslie's Sheep. They brought their sheep along on the day, which was very appropriate.
I detect that there is a huge amount of collaboration in the community and that the people who do not want to collaborate at this stage are, in fact, members of the Labor Party. I think that we should be getting on with this process. I have looked at Ms Tucker's amendment and it seems fine to me, but we need to make sure that the government understands that there will be cases that require urgent attention. It is good that they are getting on with their neighbourhood planning; I wish them well. But we have to start the process.
Mr Corbell: You know how long it takes to vary the Territory Plan.
MR SMYTH: We can vary the Territory Plan relatively quickly if there is goodwill on all sides. There is goodwill from three of the four parties represented in the Assembly today to see the process at least started so that the Swans can take their chances on the outcome. We on this side believe that it is appropriate to make this direction. We believe that it is appropriate to start the process. We look forward to the community, in collaboration, participating in that process and we look forward to the Labor Party doing as the Assembly directs them through the law.
MS TUCKER: I seek leave to speak again.
MS TUCKER: I would like to respond to a couple of comments. Mr Hargreaves seemed to think that it was only the Liberals that supported big business in the last Assembly. Labor was behind the support for Impulse, the V8 car race and so on, so there was a joint effort there by Labor and the Liberals. The issue raised by Mr Corbell and Mr Hargreaves about some kind of dangerous precedent being set is another example for me of how fascinating it is when power changes hands. Mr Corbell, as the opposition's spokesperson on planning, often did exactly so in this place, whether it was to do with dual occupancies in Red Hill, the north Watson woodlands or whatever. Of course he did that. Labor saw that to be a role of the opposition. One could argue as well that Mr Corbell was not taking into account the whole planning picture in his approach to dual occupancies in Red Hill, for example, but was responding to a particular perceived problem at the time which I supported.
In particular, I need to respond to Mr Corbell's accusations of hypocrisy by me. I do not recall whether that language is parliamentary, but I will not worry about that. I thought we were not supposed to call each other hypocrites. He seems to have misunderstood my argument on the neighbourhood planning issue. My experience in this Assembly has been that the whole concept of neighbourhood planning has come up in response to changes and perceived threats to our urban environment by the then Liberal government. I supported those concerns.