Page 3099 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a recommendation of the Planning Committee is put into place, most of the objections disappear for the future. He does make a couple of other comments about the establishment of an independent tribunal, about which he has many questions, and I must admit that I share that to a point. But I did support the recommendation coming from the committee and I am not going to criticise it now.
He raises questions about whether this proposal falls within the parameters of the better cities program. That is another matter that should be considered elsewhere. The Planning Committee is not in a position, and it is not our role, to judge whether something falls within the better cities program parameters or not. That is a matter for the Government. So he does raise a couple of interesting points, but he does not support any of the criticism or the suggestions that have been raised in connection with this proposal. I think we should note the report and get on with something important.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (12.25): Yes, I certainly agree with Mr Kaine. I will take up one or two of the points raised by Ms Szuty. I could not agree more that legislation should be in plain English. It is something of a feat to make the connections through the Land Act. If Mr Lamont and his committee can get it into plain English, that will be some sort of achievement.
The statutory requirement that letters be mailed to the neighbours was not observed in respect of section 22. Here is an interesting point. Those letters were all delivered; there is no question about that. I recently had a complaint from someone in Red Hill, where the letters were all mailed. Three of the eight recipients received those mailed letters, because people had shifted and addresses were wrong. When you get a mail address, you cannot be sure that the people you are addressing it to still live there. Mr Lamont and his committee may consider that. I thought it was interesting that, in another area where the letters were mailed out, three out of eight got to their destination.
Ms Szuty made the point that we label, in some or all circumstances, those who are opposed to medium density as NIMBYs. I do not do that. In every case, my genuine attitude, as we consider urban renewal, any change, is that urban amenity is the first thing we have to consider. I am very sensitive to that issue. I listen most attentively to the sensible and the not so sensible remarks that people in the community make.
MR MOORE (12.26), in reply: In closing the debate, Madam Speaker, I would like to take a couple of points. Mr Kaine criticised Ms Szuty, saying that she is fortunate to have changed her mind with hindsight. That is a great benefit that most of us have. When we look back with hindsight on things we have done, if we have not got it exactly right we try to modify our behaviour and our thinking in the future. That is a benefit, and Ms Szuty did not attempt to hide that.
Mr Kaine went on to say that the Planning Committee did not have to consider design and siting, that they had only a very narrow view of what they had to do. Technically, that is correct, and I accept that; but surely it is appropriate for the Planning Committee to consider the whole issue of planning in the ACT, as I understand it is doing now. If it was the case that, under the particular section of the Act that has been criticised by Mr Todd, design and siting could no longer be reviewed, then it would be appropriate for the committee to have a look at that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .