Page 5588 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010

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

---

telling us it is an absolute shambles—the way that we have these three agencies at cross-purposes, these two ministers at cross-purposes—and no-one can tell us who is in control. If this debate about this issue has done anything, it has highlighted that fact in a stark manner.

From the moment Mr Smyth highlighted this, from the moment it was put into the public arena and public debate, we have seen nothing but confusion from this government. We have seen confusion as to who is speaking on it. We have seen confusion as to which agency or who actually initiated this amendment. Now we have seen, even from the planning minister, confusion as to what it actually means. He does not even seem to understand the basics of the technical amendment. He does not seem to get what it actually does.

In relation to his amendments, again, I would just make the comment that we have put forward what could only be described as a fairly straightforward motion. I would challenge anyone to claim that there is a raft of emotive or political language that any other party would struggle to agree with. The fact that the Greens will again be moving an amendment, without any consultation with the opposition, demonstrates just how badly they are in the pocket of this government. It just becomes so much more apparent on a day-to-day basis.

This is a motion that states a number of principles and calls for information. I do not know what could be less contentious than that, in terms of a motion we discuss on private members’ day. I do not know what could be less contentious than that. I will just flag that we will not be supporting the Greens’ amendment. We will not be supporting Mr Barr’s amendments.

But what is increasingly apparent is that there is no-one in charge of planning in the ACT. It is a shambles. We have agencies and ministers at cross-purposes and we are now seeing one of the results of that during this technical amendment process.

Question put:

That Mr Barr’s amendments be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (5:18): Due to the fact that an amendment has already been moved, I seek leave to move amendments (2) and (3) of my revised amendments together.

---

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