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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3963 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

There has been nearly a year of consultation on this reform proposal, and about six months of consultation on the draft legislation. The Planning and Land Development Taskforce, advised by a committee of highly experienced and respected officials from within and outside the ACT has been involved in wide-ranging discussions with many industry and community representatives, and conducted a series of key informant interviews throughout the first half of this year. As I have already said, that has been followed by the planning and environment committee's report, and its work has raised awareness of this legislation and some of the issues that needed clarification and resolution. I think it is fair to say that most of the recommendations and observations of the committee were indeed refining in nature and did not reflect a shared opposition to the principles underlying the changes proposed in the legislation.

The total package reflects the government's proposal for the governance of planning and land management as discussed in some detail in the public arena and with members of this Assembly. It is worth pointing out that this is a central element of the government's election agenda-one that we took to the community in October last year and one which I and the government believe was roundly endorsed by the community. (Extension of time granted.)

This is an important reform, one that the community wants and one that we believe we have implemented in the most responsible, accountable and transparent way possible. I do not want to go into the details of the legislation too much again. That has been addressed in my tabling speech. But I do want to refute one argument that we heard from Mr Smyth. Mr Smyth suggested that the sustainability definition in the legislation was weak, and did not take account of the broader objectives that perhaps that the authority and indeed that the Land Development Agency should take account of. I think it is worth pointing out that the objects of the Planning and Land Bill set out the way in which the legislation aims to provide a planning and land management system that contributes to the orderly and sustainable use of land within the territory. It is important to point out that the Land Development Agency is to exercise its functions in a way that furthers these objects.

So the Land Development Agency must have regard to the primacy of the objects set out for the Planning and Land Authority, and I think that distinction has to be made in this debate. The Land Development Authority is not meant to be a planning agency. It is not meant to subvert the role of a planning agency in delivering the broad strategic guidance needed so that this Assembly and government and the community can decide on future planning directions. We have deliberately set out in this legislation to provide for the Land Development Agency to be under the Planning and Land Authority and to be the implementer of the objectives agreed by government on the advice of the authority. That is the relationship, and that is why the Land Development Agency sits under the same objects as does the Planning and Land Authority.

One other element I would like to reinforce to members is that this legislation provides a new objective for a planning agency, one which has not been in place since self-government, and that is to advise on planning and land administration policy, including the strategic spatial plan for Canberra. For the first time, in legislation there will be a statutory requirement for the authority to maintain and sustain a strategic spatial plan for our city-not just the statutory land use plan, which is the Territory Plan, but a strategic spatial plan. For the first time, it puts into law a proposal to say, "We must as

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