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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2565 ..

also ignore practical and sensible issues for business and people who live in the area, and they are often contradictory.

As a result of that, we have seen what I have spoken of on a number of occasions as despair in this town, and a flight of capital. There are now increasing numbers of people who are saying to me, “I have money to spend here but I cannot spend it because I cannot get the approvals.” Some of the development application stuff that ACTPLA and the minister announced today may be an improvement on that but, as someone said to me today, this is really good because it is a very succinct summary of just how bureaucratic the process is.

If you look at page 32 of Development Applications, for single residences in established areas and dual occupancies, under “Preparing documentation” there are 14 documents that you may have to fill out. In most cases, anyone who wants to build a single residence or a dual occupancy will have to fill out at least 10 of those and, depending on heritage and trees and such things, they may have to fill out up to 14. That is not an integrated system and this is the problem that we have.

This is not to say that it will not happen; it is just not happening fast enough. Part of the reason was that the minister pushed ahead saying, “I have to establish the authorities so people can see that I have done something.” It should have been done the other way: we should have been fixing up the land act so that, when you established the authority, you had something to work with, something that would solve people’s problems rather than perpetuate them.

In addition to all the other things that I have asked for in this motion, I am asking for, on behalf of the members of this Assembly, more unfettered access to advice from the Planning and Land Authority and from the chief planning executive. In my motion, I have proposed a form of words. I have had some discussion with Ms Tucker’s office in the course of the day. Her staff were concerned about the form of words but not about the sentiment, and they have come up with a better form of words that is not quite as prescriptive. On reflection, I found that my form of words tended to be a bit dogmatic and I do not want it to be dogmatic.

What I am trying to do is make freer the exchange of ideas, opinions and advice between the chief planning executive and his staff and members of this place who have to make decisions and vote on issues. Sometimes it is very hard to do that because we cannot get unhindered, confidential advice. Members of this place should not have to be second-guessed by DLOs when they are talking to a statutory officer, or by ministerial staff who might want to constrain others by saying, “You really cannot tell them that” or “I wish you had not said that.” That is not how you provide free advice in a grown-up legislature and it is not how it works in other statutory authorities.

I commend the motion to the Assembly and, if Ms Tucker chooses to move her amendment, the opposition will support it.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (8.32): Mr Speaker, I thank Mrs Dunne for reminding the Assembly of the fast-approaching first anniversary of the establishment of the ACT Planning and Land Authority, as is also the case for the creation of the Planning and Land Council and the Land Development Agency. I would

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