Page 4188 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, we have before us today what I think can truly be described as landmark legislation. The Liberal Party agrees with the greater part of it, at least in principle, and that is what we are talking about today. That agreement follows from the fact that the legislation was developed almost entirely under the Alliance Government, despite the Labor Party's claim to ownership of it. It was developed under the Alliance Government; the community consultation was conducted under the Alliance Government; and it was put together in its final form by the Alliance Government.
All that has happened since then is that Labor has put its ideological comb through it and taken out a few things that they did not like. Let us be quite clear, though, that it is Alliance Government legislation, essentially, and that is why we Liberals, in general, agree with the Bill.
One of the aspects of it which clearly carries the hallmark of the Alliance Government is the fact that it is a single Bill. It was first produced by the bureaucracy as five Bills. I very much suspect that that was because they were the riding instructions that were given to them by the Labor Government when it was in office last time. I had to arrange that it be consolidated into a single Bill and I think that the content of it is, very broadly, Alliance Government content.
Mr Speaker, Mr Wood has pointed out that this Bill is extraordinary in the Australian context, and I agree with him entirely. It is innovative legislation which will, like the Alliance Government's other legislation, the Weapons Act, become a model for others to follow. This legislation properly vests the ultimate powers and authority for planning in the Legislative Assembly. It provides clearly defined processes for land management, for development proposals, and for appeals, and it will result in greater certainty in terms of both the process and the outcomes of the process.
It sets time scales within which actions must be taken by the Planning Authority, by the Minister, by the Executive, and even by the Legislative Assembly itself. In other words, once something gets into the system, it simply cannot be shelved; it simply cannot be set aside, because there are statutory time limits within which action must follow. I am sure there are plenty of people out there who will be grateful for that.
I think that the important thing about this legislation, Mr Speaker, is that it and the new Territory Plan, which we will see tomorrow, establish a new baseline for land management in the ACT. What we have done is to shred out the old systems; to do away with the accumulated dross that stemmed from decades of NCDC control; to get rid of some of the unnecessarily bureaucratic processes that have evolved over the decades; and to introduce certainty and flexibility where previously there has been very little flexibility and certainly no certainty of outcome.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .