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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2087 ..

MS (continuing):

In the recent budget debate the government spoke loud and clear about social capital and development of social capital in the ACT, and they have in their social capital document a list of partnerships. The strong link they talk about is the link between government and community. The amendments I am putting today asks the government to show a little bit more respect for the community, which puts so much time into working with government on planning issues. I am disappointed to hear Mr Smyth say that he is not going to support these amendments. I am hoping to receive support from Labor.

I am looking forward to hearing some kind of explanation from Mr Rugendyke, Mr Kaine and Mr Osborne about how they are going to vote. If they are not going to vote for these amendments, I would like to know why, and I think the community would like to know why as well.

MR CORBELL (9.55): The arguments that Ms Tucker puts are highly relevant. There remains in Canberra a growing concern about the conduct of planning administration. That concern is expressed by local area planning advisory committees; it is expressed by those individuals immediately affected by the development and planning process; it is expressed by residents associations; it is expressed by many others who take an interest in the future development of the city.

The balance is always a difficult one to strike, and there will always be arguments about what is the most appropriate balance. Ms Tucker, however, puts strong arguments for the need for extra time for organisations to adequately respond. The issue of the LAPACs is the important one here. They are advisory committees. They are there to provide comment on development applications. It is certainly a common complaint to me that LAPACs often do not have enough time to respond to a development application if it is lodged immediately after their meeting, and by the time they get along to the next meeting the period for comment has often lapsed. That is quite a regular complaint. On that basis, the Labor Party will be supporting Ms Tucker's amendments.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (9.56): Government will not be supporting the amendments, because they do not need to apply to all applications. It is quite clear in the bill, which states:

For complex applications-and they do occur-the minister can extend the time for consideration. I do not think we need to allow an extended period for all applications. For the more complex ones the minister can extend the period, as would be appropriate. What we have put forward is quite acceptable. I do not believe there is a need to extend the 15 working days to 20 working days. This amendment seeks to extend the period. I do not believe there is a need for that.

We are moving from calendar days to working days because, for instance, over the last Easter and Anzac Day period somebody would have lost five calendar days-Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday. By changing to working days, we extend the period anyway. I do not believe there is any reason to allow another five working days. Government will oppose all three amendments.

MS TUCKER (9.58): I would like to respond to Mr Smyth, because he did not address many of the issues I raised. Mr Rugendyke has not spoken, Mr Osborne is not here and Mr Kaine did not speak.

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