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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 224 ..

debate already in this chamber and in the community about consultation in planning processes and the transparency and integrity of planning processes. This needs to be resolved so that the community can have their input, and to allow processes to move on.

The government should not have special privileges. We set up an independent planning authority for a reason. Almost every week we read in the paper about businesses calling for greater certainty in planning. They want special planning orders for them to make their development move more quickly. I have been thinking about what would be happening if this were a private rehabilitation facility wanting to expand. What would be the process then?

The residents of Macarthur and Fadden have been quite clear in expressing their anger. They have described the process as gung-ho and the minister as a loose cannon. But they are angry about the process. We can get the process in train and we can get it right. We can move things forward.

There has been some discussion about how this will delay for 18 months any new drug rehabilitation beds entering the community. I am disappointed that that is the only answer being put forward. I think what has been left out of this debate as it has been chucked forward on the table today is this: what else is being explored around drug rehabilitation facilities? Where else can they go? What research has been done to look at how that budget money will be expended? Why is it all hanging on Karralika? We cannot answer that question in a planning debate, but we can look at it further in a health debate. Hopefully, it will provide us with some more solutions so that we can move forward, without Karralika being the only answer for drug rehabilitation facilities.

There are many different sections to the motions before us today. I note that I will not be supporting paragraph (3) of Mrs Cross’s motion because I do not believe that the minister incorrectly used regulation 12. I have read over the regulations; I have listened to what the minister has said. I think he has misused them, in that he went against the spirit of the regulations, but he did not use them incorrectly.

The other issue is whether this whole debate should be referred to the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment. The Planning and Environment Committee already has a statutory role to look at the territory plan and issues relating to broader planning visions for the territory. Our terms of reference also allow us to look at issues pertaining to planning and environment in the territory.

There is a need to look at the use of call-in powers. I have said a number of times that I am unhappy with their being used at all. Maybe what we need to do is look at them. I do not know whether there is another solution out there; I do not know whether the Planning and Environment Committee can come up with one. But the will of the community is to have this issue re-examined. The Planning and Environment Committee should look at how call-in powers are utilised, specifically with Karralika as the catalyst for that inquiry.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the Assembly to speak again. The mover of a motion is permitted to make concluding remarks. I have never been part of a cognate debate such as this one.

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