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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2563 ..

auction documents that the community trusted turned out to be not worth a cracker, and Brown Street in Yarralumla. There is a vast range of documents that show that something has gone wrong with that process, and that the community, the people who live in the neighbourhood, now no longer trust the system.

A similar example occurred in Sirius Place in Red Hill where there have been, on various occasions, five DAs introduced, withdrawn and reintroduced. As a result, there is confusion and a lack of trust. As a result of this lack of clarity, resources are being tied up in a cumbersome process. I see today that the minister has launched three very nice documents that go some way towards addressing the cumbersome nature of that process, but it is still a long way from a perfect system.

One of the things that is really concerning to members in this place is the lack of independence of the Planning and Land Authority. This is a core problem and this is the situation about which you will find that Minister Corbell wants to have his cake and eat it too. If something goes wrong, Minister Corbell says, “The Planning and Land Authority is an independent statutory body. It can do what it likes.” However, if he wants something to happen, it happens according to Minister Corbell’s will. I do not think he can have his cake and eat it too.

The real problem with this is that Minister Corbell relies upon the planners to advise him on planning matters. That is fair enough, but that is why the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment recommended that he establish a separate, perhaps small, planning ministry so that the Planning and Land Authority could get on with being an independent statutory authority, if that is what you wanted, and he could still have planning advice.

The result of the situation we have is that nobody else in this place has access to the Planning and Land Authority or the chief planning executive for advice. This is something that has to change. Since the outset of this debate back in mid-2002, I have been asking the minister, “Can you guarantee that the chief planning executive will be independent?” and other questions.

Could I, for instance, if I wanted to or if any member of this place wanted to, ring the chief planning executive and say, “I have this problem before me, what do you reckon?” as I could, for instance—and this is the example I always like to use because it is something that I know about—with the Gambling and Racing Commission. I could ring the chief executive of the Gambling and Racing Commission and say, “I have this issue. I would like to chew the fat with you. I do not want to tie you down,” and that person would give me confidential advice.

Members of this place cannot receive that kind of advice from the chief planning executive. If members of this place want to approach the chief planning executive, or anybody else in the organisation for that matter, they have to seek permission from the minister’s office. This is not how an independent statutory authority should work and I think it is time it changed.

This is why we have moved the second part of the motion, which is the nuts and bolts. There are two or three things here that we really must address. We must establish a community consultation process that is widely accepted in the community. We had, for

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