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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4855 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

with the opportunities that they deserve. Our laws should be simple, coherent and useable by the community. I would expect that on most of those things, Mr Speaker, there would be general agreement in the Assembly. The question is the implementation of those things.

Mr Speaker, the community has had very little time to react to this Bill, but already it emerges that there are real concerns. I listened today to anxiety and to anger. Do other members of the Assembly listen? Are they listening to what they are being told, and what answers do they have for their constituents? Is there any ground swell of support for the Government's actions on these things? Of course not.

MR SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

MS HORODNY (5.25): Mr Speaker, we will not be supporting this Bill. We think it represents a very poor response indeed to the Stein inquiry and will be a huge backward step for the planning of the ACT. The Stein report represents a significant milestone in the planning and management of ACT land since the ACT achieved self-government in 1989. Ever since the abolition of the National Capital Development Commission the ACT has struggled to find an effective and accountable planning system that balances the push for development with broader social and environmental interests.

The Stein inquiry was seen by all sides as a way to really sort out how ACT land should be administered. To a very great extent, it has delivered on this promise in its broad-ranging recommendations on management of the leasehold system and the structure of the planning administration. While the Government has accepted many of the recommendations of Stein, unfortunately it has rejected some of its key recommendations relating to the administrative structures for planning and land management, the continuation of the leasehold system and the payment of betterment.

The Greens wholeheartedly support the retention of the leasehold system in recognition of the fact that land is primarily a community resource. We regard ACT land in particular as land held in trust for the Australian community as a whole by the Commonwealth and Territory governments. We recognise, however, that the pure leasehold system has been considerably modified over time, so it is not really possible to return to its original formulation. However, we are not convinced that the changes proposed to the leasehold system by the Government are in the best interests of the ACT residents.

We are particularly concerned about the transfer from the public sector to the private sector of wealth derived from the use of land in the ACT that has occurred over recent years through the watering down of the betterment system. The Government's move to reduce betterment to 75 per cent can only continue this trend. The Greens also support Stein's recommendation for the establishment of an independent planning authority and reject wholeheartedly the Government's proposals to abolish the position of Chief Planner and to convert the ACT Planning Authority into a single position within the ACT Public Service.

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