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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2745 ..

MRS CROSS (continuing):

Ms Tucker has now dismissed the community and the consultation process that was carried out.

I, for one, am extremely surprised and even a tad disappointed that Ms Tucker would compromise her beliefs and the committee system as a whole-and for what? I would like to add that the consultation process was carried out in the usual way: very thoroughly. Ms Tucker is not known for dismissing committee consultation or committee reports, especially when there is a unanimous report of that committee. So, what has driven Ms Tucker to turn against her principle stand in this way?

As I have said, it is a shame that we are now debating a disallowance motion on DV 200 instead of having a draft variation that has been developed and accepted by the Assembly. The Minister for Planning, Mr Corbell, has done his deal to get his draft variation approved. He has done his deal with the Greens to achieve what he believes is a good political result. Whilst it may be a very good political result for Mr Corbell, it is not a very good planning result for Canberra and its residents.

When examined in closer detail, Mr Corbell's and Ms Tucker's deal to pass DV 200 shows what both think of the community. It shows what both think of their constituents. It shows what both think of the committee system. It shows what both think of Canberra. It is sad that Mr Corbell was happy-and, I might add, quick-to do his deal with the Greens instead of working to reach a compromise with other members of the Assembly, who were very keen to have a DV 200 in place, in a way that worked for Canberrans as a whole.

I have worked hard to broker a compromise with members of the committee and the minister over a number of weeks. I am aware that other members of the planning committee were also working to achieve an acceptable compromise. All committee members were keen to have an appropriate DV 200 accepted. It was a unanimous report from committee members, who attended the meetings and hearings.

These are the members who spoke to the stakeholders and who were involved in the consultation process. Unfortunately, the minister, Mr Corbell, was not willing to work towards a reasonable outcome, so he is now dealing with a half-hearted draft variation, which I predict will be changed and changed again as problems arise and the real political reality can be seen by the government.

Draft variation 200 should not have been dealt with until after the spatial plan was completed. If we had dealt with the spatial plan for Canberra first, then DV 200 would have provided a far more sensible and logical way forward. As I have said before, it is a shame that we are here debating the disallowance of DV 200. It is a shame that this could not have been worked out in the mature, reasonable and apolitical way it should have been.

Draft variation 200 of the Territory Plan is like a burnt stew. No matter how much you try to add things to take away the burnt taste, no matter how much you try to scrape the burnt bits out of the pot, the taste is the same. It is ruined and the taste is burnt stew. Like a burnt stew, DV 200 needs to go back to the beginning and get a clean pot and some fresh ideas and views. It needs to get something that, for once, will last unamended for years and provide positive planning guidelines for Canberra.

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