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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3748 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

believes that the recommendation proposes an unnecessary burden on the operations of the authority.

The third recommendation is:

The government believes the provisions of the Planning and Land Bill provide an authorisation for the authority to grant leases on behalf of the executive. The bill has been framed to ensure that the Land Development Agency can grant a lease only when the authority gives an appropriate delegation. Clause 17 (2) of the Planning and Land Bill enables the process of selling land to be more effectively fulfilled by enabling it complete its contractual agreement to grant an estate. This could occur as a normal part of the land agency's procedures, once all development and infrastructure requirements in respect of the land have been met. This procedure avoids unnecessary administrative double handling, whereby leases would be prepared by the authority and forwarded to the land agency for issuing to purchasers of particular parcels of land.

The fourth recommendation is:

The government does not agree with this recommendation. It is not considered appropriate for directions by the Treasurer for the payment of funds to the territory to be notifiable instruments. For the purposes of accountability and transparency, any outcomes from the Treasurer's directions will be available for public scrutiny through quarterly performance reports, annual budget papers, statements of corporate intent, audit reports, annual reports and the estimates committee hearings. For these reasons, the government believes that adoption of the recommendation would impose an unnecessary procedural burden.

Those are the recommendations the government does not agree with. The government has responded positively to the majority of the committee's recommendations and conclusions. Regarding the proposed date for review of the act, at clause 75, the government has noted the committee's concerns about the timing for review and proposals to amend the bill to require review as soon as practicable after 31 December 2006. This is a year earlier than currently provided for in the bill, and provides for a review more than three years after the commencement of the legislation.

The committee also expressed a concern about the primacy of the Territory Plan in respect of the proposed statement of planning intent. The government proposes to amend the bill to include a note making it clear that section 8 of the land act, which prohibits acts that are inconsistent with the plan, cannot be overridden by a statement of planning intent. That would clarify the position that a statement may present policy intentions that were inconsistent with the plan, but those could not be acted upon unless and until the plan was varied to permit that action.

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