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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3962 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

a commercial orientation, and will be managed by a board, members of which will possess expertise in a range of relevant fields. I must stress that the intention in setting up the Land Development Agency is not to permit public land development. The government can already do that; it is already possible for the territory to undertake public land development. No legislative change is needed-no amendment to any bill or act is needed to do that.

The intention of this bill is to recognise that putting into effect the government's policy to undertake development in some cases requires appropriate rules about the manner in which the government's developer operates and reports to the community. This legislation is about putting in place a robust, commercially-based organisation that delivers public land development in an accountable, transparent and open fashion-in a fashion that requires reporting to this place, and that requires scrutiny by this place. That is what the Land Development Agency is about.

Really, this is the nub of the opposition's opposition to this package. They do not accept that there is a role for government in delivering land development in the territory-regardless of the fact that New South Wales has a public role in land development, that Victoria, even under Jeff Kennett, had a public role in land development, that Western Australia has a public role in land development, and that South Australia has a public role in land development. Why is it that, in the only jurisdiction in the nation where the community is the holder of the land asset, we do not participate in some level of land development to the benefit of the community?

The reason is that the small but powerful vested interests of those involved in this industry have sought to prevent government and the community engaging in the development of its own asset and reaping the return of that asset, not only the financial return but also the social return in terms of better outcomes on the ground. This government is determined to reverse that and to place far greater capacity in the hands of the community overall to get better suburbs, more environmentally sustainable outcomes and better return in the public interest.

In contrast, the Planning and Land Authority's focus will be on a high standard of planning and the development of a strategic approach to development. As members have pointed out, it will be constituted by a chief planning executive. The Planning and Land Bill does not replace the existing land act; it provides a new governance framework within which planning, leasing and development control will operate. It is, of course, necessary to amend the land act and other legislation to take account of the new government structure. The required amendments are contained in the consequential amendments bill to this primary bill. Related to the two main bills in the package is the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill. This bill makes some simple but very important changes to practices of the AAT in planning and land matters.

This is not a complicated package, no matter how much Mrs Dunne asserts otherwise. It is, in fact, remarkably simple in its structure. I acknowledge, though, that the consequential amendments are wordy. That is why I have on numerous occasions offered members an opportunity to receive detailed briefings, and I am grateful to those members who have accepted that opportunity.

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