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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4860 ..

MR MOORE: The relevance is particularly important, Mr Speaker. The fact that we were prepared to make our drafting instructions available shows that we have worked very hard to try to be ready for this legislation, but we are not ready. We risk going through the same process as we went through with the original Land (Planning and Environment) Bill and having to amend this legislation over the next five or six years.

I heard Mr Humphries on radio this morning saying, "Yes, but Mr Moore was part of that legislation that was put up in the early days of the First Assembly, so it is his legislation as well". Mr Speaker, it was not. I did not support that legislation. I am trying to recall whether in the end I voted for it. If I did, the only reason was that it was better than having nothing. It was the Government's legislation that was put up. We attempted to get some sanity. The problem with the legislation was not the amendments; it was the original legislation that was put up.

Let me give a little bit of history. Originally, the legislation came to us in four parts. The Assembly said, "No, do not give it to us in four parts. That is a ridiculous situation. People will not know that they have to have four separate pieces of legislation. Go back and make it into one". When it came back to us as one piece of legislation, the Government had just joined the four pieces of legislation together and then called it one Bill. That was not the intention. The intention was that it be a simplified piece of legislation that covered the four areas, but we made the mistake on that occasion of pushing it through. We were inexperienced at that time. We ought not to have made that mistake. This time we certainly have a much broader range of experience and we should know better.

The way to deal with the Bill is to refer it to the Planning and Environment Committee. That is a very sensible approach. We can all go home early tonight, the Planning and Environment Committee can come back to the Assembly with a report ready for the next sitting, and we can deal with the Bill, having checked the ramifications of the legislation and all the amendments, and having consulted the community. Consulting the community may seem to be a strange idea when the Government was elected on a promise to do that. They said, "We will consult broadly with the community. We will not just ride roughshod over people's ideas". How long have the community had to see this legislation? Mr Humphries kindly gave members a draft copy of the legislation, but the legislation itself has been in the public arena for only a very short time.

What will the legislation achieve? Mr Speaker, the great bulk of ordinary residents will not be served well by this legislation. This legislation is about facilitating development. It serves developers and residents, but it serves developers a little bit better. I am not saying in black and white that this legislation is just for developers and is going to cut residents out. That is not the case. It significantly increases the power of developers and significantly decreases the power of ordinary residents to appeal. There are other issues as well that we will get to in the detail stage.

The actions of the vast bulk of small-time developers are acceptable in a planning context. They also contribute considerably to this community. A small percentage of developers always push the boundaries. They do not want to play by the rules; they want to set new rules. Their actions are often quite unacceptable, but at least people who have an interest in planning and in this city also have the wherewithal to appeal. Unfortunately,

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