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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 183 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The government has announced today that they want a review of land use where the pines were burnt. Land that was burnt out and is capable of being used for urban purposes will be dealt with through the spatial plan process. Rural land will be dealt with through a separate study which Mr Stanhope announced today. That looks a reasonable process. I have some concerns about the spatial plan process. I have consulted the community on how it feels about the spatial plan development. There are some concerns about how well people are being listened to. I will be raising that with the minister in more detail after I have had more time to consult further and find out exactly what the problems are. If we are handing this question over to the spatial plan process, we have to have confidence in that process. I will be giving closer attention to that.

It is important that we do not see confusion or conflict between the inquiries such as we saw with the Gallop inquiry. That was partially to do with the way Justice Gallop chose to run that inquiry. I recall that with the hospital implosion the then Liberal government was very concerned about the potential for overlap. From memory, a member of the judiciary expressed concerns, and the Liberal government immediately withdrew the proposal to have an inquiry under the Inquiries Act, because of concerns about the overlap. In my time here I have seen different approaches to this question from the Liberals. I guess we just move on and learn, and deal with each issue as it arises, doing what we think, in good conscience, is going to serve the community interest in the best way.

I am uneasy about some of the highly legalistic and prescriptive language Mr Smyth has used in his terms of reference. That takes me back to the points about legal costs and so on.

I agree with the issues Mr Smyth has referred to. It is important that we look not just at future land use but also at water management, industry development, and planning and design requirements. These are all aspects that need to be addressed. Work was being done to some degree through the spatial plan process, but there is a lot more information to feed in after the fires.

We agree that it is relevant to look at what caused houses at the urban interface to burn or not to burn. We believe that future planning processes should not be part of the proposed inquiry but part of the McLeod inquiry and potentially part of the coronial process. According to the Coroners Act, if you are looking at the cause and origin of the fire, those sorts of aspects could be included.

I have some concerns about community consultation on the spatial plan. I intend to continue to pursue those concerns.

While I cannot support Mr Smyth's motion, for the reasons I have outlined, I appreciate his efforts and look forward to working with him to make a positive contribution to our efforts in the Assembly to improve our ability to deal effectively with bushfire risks and threats.

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