Page 114 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR FOSKEY: As to the process that I am not allowed to talk about, it would be very interesting to know what an independent tribunal or court would make of its propriety, legality and merits, but it looks like we might be denied that experience, and this legislation is being rushed through today in order to deny us that experience.
The court decision that engendered this proposed amendment was handed down on 18 December and the next opportunity to pass this bill would be next Tuesday. Does anyone believe that, after a delay of two months, the need for this bill to be passed today, not next Tuesday, is related to the need to ensure—and I quote from the Attorney-General’s letter justifying this urgent debate—“the certainty and continuity required for investor confidence in the ACT property sector and other sectors”?
What really makes me uncomfortable is the fear that, under the cloak of legislation such as this bill, the ACT will become beholden to developers directing political donations at parties that are able to deliver development opportunities on time and at a good price. Part of being able to deliver development opportunities is the minimisation or removal of third party appeal rights. Let’s put on the record again the basis of the Auditor-General’s finding.
Why do developers fund political parties? Why are they disproportionately represented in the political donations register? Is it because they have a keen interest in the democratic process and want to ensure that public-spirited candidates get the resources to spread their messages of community beneficence? Again, students of cynicism 101 should be taking notes. My colleague Lee Rhiannon, speaking about a similar development in New South Wales, said, “The Liberal and Labor parties deny that they are influenced by the multimillion—
Mr Corbell: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, I draw your attention to the standing order relating to relevance. Dr Foskey is now launching into a diatribe about political donations policy and financial disclosure. That has absolutely nothing to do with this legislation. Again, I draw your attention to her comments and ask you to ask her to be relevant in the debate.
MR SPEAKER: The bill is about third party appeals.
Mr Corbell: It is not about political donations.
MR SPEAKER: It certainly is not about political donations, and Dr Foskey seeks to draw some sort of connection between political donations and third party appeals. I think that it is fair enough to make those accusations, but not if they impugn people in this place, Dr Foskey.
DR FOSKEY: No, and I certainly would not want to do that. I am talking about setting a general framework through changes to our planning laws, and that is the subject of the bill we are discussing today. There may well be a connection. I am not implying that there is. I would like to remind everyone that we are discussing today a bill which was handed down last week and which an hour or two ago we were not going to be discussing till later, but we are discussing now. We need to be cognisant of the fact that we have not had much time to prepare for it. I think the complaint is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .