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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 3850 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Land Council, which will have an expert advisory role; and the Land Development Agency, which will be charged with undertaking government land development in a vigorous and accountable manner.

The bill does not propose substantial changes to the operations of, or the rights and responsibilities conferred by, the land act. Consequential changes to the land act quite simply ensure that the powers and functions under that act are effectively administered according to the new government's arrangements. The only other substantive changes to the land act are the strengthening of the transparency and accountability mechanisms surrounding the use of the call-in powers by the minister, and ensuring maximum opportunity for mediation in the decision-making process. This includes allowing the authority to reconsider its decisions in a similar manner to the process available in New South Wales. It is quite clear and it is worth adding that there has been no removal or reduction of appeal rights as currently set out in the land act.

As Mrs Dunne points out, the land act has been in effect for over 10 years. As advised in the government's response to the Estimates Committee, it is timely to undertake a comprehensive review of its operation. This will require detailed expert analysis of the effectiveness of all of the act's provisions and the rights and responsibilities that the act bestows upon leaseholders within the territory. This will require considerable analysis and will require some time to complete. Above all, the review should be conducted carefully, consultatively and conclusively.

As Mrs Dunne's motion notes, a major review of the land act will require significant resources and time to ensure that it delivers the right outcome. The current program, which is subject to the government's budget deliberations, provides for the commencement of a review in the second half of 2003. This review would be expected to take at least 12 months to complete. The timetable would envisage an exposure draft of the new legislation being available in mid-2004 for broad community and Assembly committee consideration and input. If we took Mrs Dunne's line of thinking that the planning and land legislation not commence before we finish the review of the land act, we could well be looking at a starting date for the new government's arrangements well into 2004, or even 2005. If that is not a delaying tactic, what is?

It does not follow that all other planning and land proposals should be put on hold pending the review of the land act. On the contrary, as the Planning and Land Bill is about the government structure for management of the planning and land management functions, the review should not be undertaken until the bill has been passed and the new structures are in operation. The Planning and Land Bill would not affect the operation of the planning, leasing and development control functions. It would merely place those functions within a different management framework and, through a few minor consequential amendments, clarify the call-in powers and provide for the authority to reconsider its decisions on development applications.

As to the question of who should conduct the review of the land act, the government's position is that an independent consultant could be contracted to assist the authority, but this will be ultimately a decision by government and the authority. The authority will, after all, be where most of the expertise in the territory is located. The usual practice is that the Department of Justice and Community Safety would be asked to advise on legal

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