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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (23 August) . . Page.. 3243 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

This is an important issue, one that is closely linked to a separate inquiry currently being undertaken by my committee into an improvement to the central land administration information system for the territory. The committee will bring down a report on this matter in the not-too-distant future-hopefully, next week-and I hope it will set the scene for significant improvements to what we are currently doing in this area. Speaking professionally, I can see huge benefits to the various professions involved-which I have witnessed in Hobart, Queensland and the Northern Territory-in speeding up and reducing costs to the consumer.

In the context of draft variation 155, our fourth recommendation simply draws attention to the need to move with the times in terms of providing electronic and comprehensive access to information about land uses and lease boundaries.

This report is a unanimous report. I would like to thank all those who have assisted us, in particular the officers of PALM-and Dr Cooper and Minister Smyth for making the officers available. I thank our secretary, Rod Power, and also my colleagues Mr Rugendyke and Mr Corbell. I commend the report to the Assembly.

MR CORBELL (11.24): Mr Speaker, the most important recommendation in this report is the one that recommends to the government that draft variation No 155 be resubmitted to the successor of the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services in the next Assembly. It is important because draft variation No 155 and the proposed draft variation 125 of the new ACTCode 2 variations are clearly linked. Indeed, the provisions in draft variation 155 in relation to master planning are closely linked with the provisions for master planning which we have already seen in the publicly released draft variation 125, now being further worked on.

The committee felt it was important that these two draft variations were dealt with together, in the same way that the committee has considered two other draft variations concurrently. Because of their clear relationship to each other, we felt it was important not to assess draft variation 155 in isolation from the proposal contained in draft variation 125 for how it would be implemented in practice.

The importance of this issue is added to by the fact that draft variation 125, the new ACT code for residential development, is a very controversial document. It has attracted a lot of public debate, indeed, concern, over the past few months. To give approval, in effect, to the operational aspects of that through approving draft variation 155 was, the committee felt, inappropriate. It is now incumbent on the government to recognise the importance of this recommendation and acknowledge that these two documents, 155 and 125, should be dealt with concurrently, so that the full range of issues can be dealt with as a whole rather than in isolation from each other, and then be decided upon ultimately by this place.

The other recommendations that Mr Hird addressed in his speech are on more minor issues that the committee felt should be accommodated in draft variation 155-in the document that will be referred back to the successor of the Planning and Urban Services Committee in the next Assembly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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