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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3948 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

Importantly, the concept of the Territory Plan is retained. However, the administrative structure of PALM is replaced. Instead, the Planning and Land Bill creates two new statutory authorities-the Planning and Land Authority and the Land Development Agency-and a new advisory council, the Planning and Land Council.

The authority has to exercise its powers according to the terms of the Territory Plan, ministerial direction, advice of the council-sometimes-the heritage guidelines if there is a DA for something on the heritage register, a statement of planning intent, and the principles of sustainable development.

The Liberals have asked themselves the general question: is this regulatory overload? The opposition has had to carefully consider the merits or otherwise of the legislation tabled, and considers that it does not meet the objectives of the minister in his introductory speech to build a "more robust and independent system of planning and land development in the ACT".

We all know that the government came to power with a promise to reform planning. But will there be real reform as a result of this package? The question that I have consistently asked-in briefings and in discussions with the people in the taskforce and the minister, and through the inquiries of the environment and planning committee-is this: six months after this legislation comes into effect, will anything have changed? I think that the answer is substantively nothing.

Planning is a matter of concern to most Canberrans, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. There is more than one way to deliver better outcomes, and this is not the only way. However, I would like to point out that we are not opposed to all aspects of the package. Indeed, for the record, the provisions made for the Land and Planning Authority are sound and relatively uncontroversial. There is a general belief in the community that something needs to be done to address the crisis caused by low morale and de-skilling in planning and land management. As I said in this place last Thursday, Canberra risks giving up its reputation as the most pre-eminent planned city in the world, because of the de-skilling and low morale in PALM.

As I also said in this place last week, I am not reassured that everything will be okay just because we pass this legislation. I do not think enough thought has gone into the change management process. I am not satisfied that enough consideration has been given to what the new son of PALM, as I like to call it, will look like, and how it will function effectively.

There is a feeling in the community that there needs to be change, and I am not opposing change. But there needs to be change in the structure of PALM, so as to re-establish morale. In short, PALM needs to be better resourced. It needs a morale boost and it needs real leadership. If we are to maintain our pre-eminence as a planned city-and this I believe we certainly must do-we must conduct an international search for the right leader. We must not shy away from world's best practice. We must strive to get the very best.

I would like to touch for a moment on some aspects of the legislation that raise the most concern. This is quite apart from the unseemly haste of the government to steamroll this legislation through, quite contrary to the unanimous recommendation of the Planning and

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