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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1507 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: This variation was released on 10 February 1996 and replaced draft variation No. 33, which was withdrawn on the same day. During April and May 1997, the draft variation was considered and endorsed by the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment. In its report the committee made two further recommendations:

The Standing Committee on Planning and Environment recommends that the Government review the procedures and processes used to handle draft Variations, with the aim of significantly reducing the time taken for a draft Variation to reach the Planning and Environment Committee and, subsequently, the Legislative Assembly.

It further went on:

The Standing Committee on Planning and Environment recommends that the Government speed up the review of B1 and quickly announce the Government's response to the review, including its response to the desirability of new Guidelines - and then facilitate their speedy referral to the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment. This recommendation reflects the Committee's disappointment - and frustration - about the Government's delay in bringing forward revised proposals for the B1 Areas.

In respect of the recommendation concerning a review of processes and procedures to reduce the time it takes to bring draft variations to the committee, I should say that I, too, would like to see the timeframe reduced. However, this needs to be considered in relation to a number of factors. First, as the committee members would well know, the variation process is subject to a number of actions and timeframes prescribed by the Land Act. These provisions are there to ensure transparency and accountability of processes. Secondly, the time taken to assess and respond to comments made during the public consultation process is directly related to the number and complexity of the issues raised in those comments. Thirdly, any steps to reduce the timeframe for dealing with draft variations should balance the need for speedy resolution of draft variations with the need for adequate public consultation. Finally, in the case of this variation, I was particularly keen for the LAPACs to have an opportunity to develop and test their community value statements before finalising the changes to the Territory Plan.

Mr Speaker, I also should observe that comments were made about the matter having rested in my office and that being the cause of delay for much of the time it took to get from the presentation stage to the community to presentation in the Assembly. I have had the records checked, and there was a period between November 1996 and February 1997 during which the documents were lost or not accounted for. I can report, though, that records show that the documentation concerned left the office of Mr Prattley to go to the office of Mr Turner on 21 November, but there is no record of it having been received by Mr Turner's office. It follows from that, I think, that it is unlikely they ever reached my office, since they had not been recorded as having reached Mr Turner's office.

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