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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (14 November) . . Page.. 3621 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

The committee started from the premise that governments have the right to seek to implement their policies. It also took the view that this Assembly must carefully consider the merits or otherwise of the policy and whether the legislation tabled meets the objectives of the government to provide-to quote the minister in his introductory speech on 27 June-"a more robust and independent system of planning and land development for the ACT".

With this in mind, the committee restricted its examination of the legislation to the actual terms of the bill and the consequential amendments and accompanying documents. In its recommendations, the committee draws attention to clauses in the legislation that are defective, lack clarity or appear to be counter to the government's stated objectives.

In the report, there are 22 recommendations. The most important recommendation is the first one, which reads:

The committee recommends to the Assembly that this legislation not be rushed through to meet artificial deadlines. The committee understood that the government originally wished to have its new structure in place on 1 January 2003. It has been advised that 1 July 2003 is a more realistic starting date.

I might add that we were advised by PALM and I have been told by constituents that the minister is saying in his correspondence that the starting date will be 1 July 2003. The key piece of advice from the Planning and Environment Committee to this Assembly is: don't rush it. There are other important recommendations; they are all important, but I will dwell on some.

In the committee's deliberations and in consultation with the community, many things arose. For the majority of the committee and most who made submissions, the ministerial statement of planning intent was one of the most contentious issues. The thing that arose about that is: how does the ministerial statement of planning intent sit in relation to other legislated documentation that relates to planning; in particular, how does it relate to the Territory Plan?

We are concerned that the ministerial statement of planning intent may be a way of subverting other pre-eminent pieces of planning documentation and there are possibilities that at some future time a Russ Hinze type of planning minister may be able to use a statement of planning intent to override the Territory Plan and to authorise unsuitable developments or changes to planning law. There is a need for the Territory Plan to be reinforced in its primacy as the principal tool for planning in the ACT. The committee recommends that the primacy of the Territory Plan should remain and that this new legislation should reflect that.

It will come as no surprise to the minister that the Land Development Agency was strongly opposed by the planning, building and property organisations which made representations to the committee. They pointed to the inherent conflict in the aims of the authority. There was constant risk of conflict between sound business practice and planning objectives. There were bland assertions by the minister that everything would be all right, but there is not enough underpinning the legislation as it currently stands to ensure that sound business practices will not override the planning principles. To that extent, the committee recommends that it be made explicit in the legislation that the

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