Page 1003 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
housing would be hit by some two months' extra holding costs on the land that builders have purchased and a fee of approximately $200, simply to enable low cost housing to exercise a right that has already been granted to the more expensive detached housing. That is the matter of equity that I mentioned before.
The Government is fully committed to the principle of community consultation, but the purpose of this consultation must be clear. The Government does not agree that there must be community consultation merely for the sake of consultation or to encourage a talkfest. There must be a purpose to such consultation which provides a clear benefit for the additional time and cost involved. The purpose of consultation is to inform the community where important changes to planning policy are contemplated and to gain views to refine the proposal; but in this case it can hardly be said that putting into legislation what has been there for seven years is a change of policy. It is not a change of policy. There is no point in undertaking a consultation process if there is no likelihood of improving the proposal, if no matters of equity are to be addressed, or if there is evidence - and this is clearly the case now - of community acceptance.
In relation to this variation, the evidence of community acceptance can be seen in the lack of objection to the discretionary practice adopted over the last seven years. This is the reason why the legislation has subsection 19(6) to allow the Executive to waive the public consultation process in certain circumstances. It is there and it should be used, as in the case of this particular variation, where the Executive is satisfied that public consultation is not necessary. This motion seems to want to impose unnecessary cost and time burdens on the building industry, and thereby the consumer, for the sake of having public consultation. Members should be aware that 16 July is the critical date, because that is when the Buildings (Design and Siting) Act amendments come into place. From that date any development application that does not comply with the design and siting standards will require notification under the new planning legislation. I believe that we must reject this motion now.
MR MOORE (11.38): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the motion of Ms Szuty, which probably takes people by surprise. I think it is interesting that Mr Wood, in his speech, said that if this motion is agreed to by the Assembly there will be all sorts of costs and expenses associated with this particular variation. Of course, that is simply not the case. If this motion is agreed to by the Assembly, then an appropriate time of public consultation will take place. It may well be, then, that the variation will be passed because the public have had the opportunity to have their say. It may well be very acceptable. But there is always the chance that it is not acceptable, and I will get to that issue in a little while.
The first part of the issue really is: From where is this Government and from where is the Planning Authority taking orders? In the minute paper to the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning from the Planning Authority comes this sentence:
The Authority has, consistent with section 19(7) of the Act, obtained information about public attitudes relating to the draft Variation ...
Where is it going to get its information on public attitudes? Obviously, it is going to get its information generally from the public. Its concept of what constitutes the public is the Master Builders Association and the Housing Industry Association. Great! What an unbiased perspective that is! The perspective of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .