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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4873 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

the people of the ACT that there will be no more town centres of the quality of planning of Belconnen. This brand-new effort is going to try to incorporate a far better process that perhaps will not end up with a car park overlooking a lake, which is not exactly the outcome of good planning. Probably any number of planners can tell me that it really was not the work of a planner but a mistake along the way, but I think it is best forgotten and never done again.

What we are doing tonight may well produce another mistake of that kind, but it may not. It is foolish to say that just one position makes a difference to the quality of planning in the ACT. What makes the difference is agreed outcomes, political will and the will of the community, understood and followed. That requires proper administrative structures, a Minister willing and able to listen, an opposition that keeps the government on their toes and a community that trusts the processes that are happening. In March 1996 the Minister said:

... the Planning and Land Management Division ... will be established within the Department of Urban Services, replacing the existing structures of the Land Division and administrative and policy functions of the ACT Planning Authority, bringing together responsibility for managing Canberra's leasehold management and land use planning. This will do much to facilitate the integration of land planning and management and produce the improvements we are all seeking.

Mr Humphries went on to say:

The new division's functions will fall into five key areas of responsibility - policy, land supply, area coordination, customer services and regulation. The policy group will be charged with the responsibility for producing and reviewing the Land Act and the Territory Plan, including all of the items identified by the board of inquiry under its proposed land use suitability plan.

Everybody has had that paper and had the opportunity to read it. It has been in the public domain since March, so it is no surprise to anybody that tonight we are looking to abolish this position. Not only have we seen this come into play, but we know full well that we have heading that division an eminently well-qualified person who is a planner and has an excellent national and international reputation.

What is more, totally within the spirit of the Stein inquiry and recommendations, at least two more people have joined PALM. One is a very well-known planner and one has excellent qualifications in architecture, although I do not know about his other qualifications. By this Government's action, not only are we keeping a well-qualified planner in charge of all these activities but we have increased the number of qualified people, as recommended by Stein. It was a somewhat elitist recommendation, might I add, but still one that the Government has taken on board.

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