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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3960 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

It has been brought about through a very detailed range of discussions and consultations, and it disappoints me no end that at every twist and turn we have seen the Liberal Party seek to oppose this legislation-delay it, alter it, send it off to an inquiry, look at it again, put it off. For those people who criticise this government for not making decisions to then stand up in this place and argue, "Don't decide on this very important reform yet"-because we need to find another excuse to delay it-is, I think, hypocrisy of the highest order.

I would like to address a range of issues which speakers have raised in the debate. First of all, in relation to Mrs Dunne's amendment, it is a curious last stand by Mrs Dunne, but one which I think is flawed in two very important respects. First of all, she proposes that the Assembly condemns me for "failing to provide all supporting statutory rules so as to allow the Assembly to make an informed decision about whether the total package deserves support". I need to point out two things to members. First of all, I presume Mrs Dunne is referring to the regulations that are proposed to be made under the act if this bill is passed. Those regulations are, of course, disallowable instruments, and are subject to scrutiny and potential disallowance in this place. So for Mrs Dunne to raise the ogre of the government arbitrarily making regulations which are not subject to any review or reconsideration is simply false. Secondly, how is it possible for the government to make such regulations when we do not know yet the final context of the bill?

Mrs Dunne herself has indicated that she has over 30 amendments. I know that Ms Tucker and Ms Dundas also have amendments. I have not seen those members' amendments yet, but I look forward to the opportunity to discuss those amendments with them. So how is it possible to make regulation in detail when we do not yet know exactly what the powers of the new legislation will be?

Mrs Dunne: You write the protocols on the basis of what you want.

MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, I heard Mrs Dunne in silence. I would ask her to do me the same courtesy. The government has provided to the planning and environment committee a very clear outline of the areas where we expect regulation to be made, and the intent of those regulations.

The government has been open and accountable in that regard. Mr Smyth, and also Mr Stefaniak, raised the issue of the statement of planning intent, and whether or not the statement of planning intent was some subterfuge on the part of the government to undermine the legitimacy and indeed primacy of the Territory Plan. Perhaps it would be worthwhile if opposition members actually went to the unanimous report of the committee, chaired by their colleague Mrs Dunne, and the government's response to that report. The committee recommended that it be clear that the primacy of the Territory Plan is absolute, and that the statement of planning intent cannot be used to undermine it. The government has agreed to that recommendation and I have already written to members indicating that I will be proposing a government amendment to this bill to make that point very clear-that the statement of planning intent cannot be used to undermine the primacy of the Territory Plan.

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