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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3953 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The Y plan, which has largely guided Canberra's development since the 1960s, has some good points, such as the decentralised development of separate towns and the preservation of bushland between the towns. However, it has given priority to private cars as the main means of transport, resulting in low-density urban development and extensive road systems. Most of the building development also occurred before we even knew about the greenhouse effect and the need for energy efficiency. Remnant woodlands and grasslands are now endangered ecosystems in the region because of urban expansion on top of previous agricultural land clearing.

The key challenge for us all is to respect our past while adapting to the environmental and social challenges of the future. The establishment of a Planning and Land Authority will be an important step in the evolution of Canberra's planning system. But, as I have indicated, it is just one part of a much larger picture. It is certainly not going to solve all the various problems with planning in the ACT. The Planning and Land Authority will have more day-to-day independence from the government than the current arrangement, but it has to be recognised that it will not be totally independent and will not be making all the planning decisions in the ACT.

The Greens believe that this is actually the way it should be. Planning is a very political process in that it often involves trade-offs between various interests in the community. There needs to be accountability in our planning system, and ultimately the buck must stop with the community's elected representatives and not a planning bureaucrat. It is proper for the Assembly to be setting broad planning principles and making the key planning decisions through variations to the Territory Plan rather than passing this task to an unelected official. The role of the Planning and Land Authority is critical, however, in providing high-quality, professional advice to the Assembly, rather than providing advice that has already been through the political filters of the government of the day.

The independence of the Planning and Land Authority is significantly constrained by other provisions in the land act regarding how Territory Plan variations are made and how development applications are approved, and what appeal rights are available. The minister still has significant control over the work of the authority. The minister can give directions to the authority about what policies it should follow or on revisions to the territory plan. The minister has also retained the infamous call-in power. There is also a new provision for the minister to give the authority a statement of planning intent which will set out the main principles that are to govern planning and land development. I question whether this provision is really necessary, as it overlaps with the directions power and also the statement could be inconsistent with the principles in the existing Territory Plan. I believe that the primacy of the Territory Plan must be maintained so that, if the minister wants to change the plan, he should do this through the existing means.

The Planning and Land Authority may initiate variations to the Territory Plan but it is still up to the executive to approve these variations. The Assembly also has the role of reviewing these variations through the planning and environment committee and it has the power to disallow the variation. I would hope, however, that with the new authority there will be a lesser number of plan variations which just pander to particular development interests, and that development proposals that have little public merit are rejected early rather than being stopped only right at the end of the process by a disallowance motion. One example I can think of is the proposed housing development

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