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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2577 ..

I think the government has been working with the neighbourhood planning process, although I think that there is still a lot to be learned. It is an iterative process. Hopefully the lessons from these suburbs are informing the process designed for the next.

Importantly, a neighbourhood plan is not a continuing process. Community participation in planning needs to be continual. The proposition to engage community councils with the planning regime is attractive because those bodies already exist and have reasonably clear domains, central Canberra excepted. They are, of course, self-selecting—they could not function otherwise—but are not necessarily diverse or inclusive and we have to make sure that that is the case if they are to be such an important channel between the community and government. I notice that the Woden Community Council has organised discussion of the Canberra social plan with a number of people from the new Canberra Inclusion Board on 7 July, which is a very commendable move. Those issues might be discussed at that event.

Overall, issues of inclusion and the equally important issues of resourcing are the ones that need to be addressed. Indeed, inclusion and resourcing are fundamental issues in regard to all dimensions of community engagement. I take the view that, if we are to have an active and engaged community and if we are to develop a planning regime that sufficiently reflects the diverse aspirations of this community and the people within it, a thoughtful approach to these issues is important.

I note that, for some consultative bodies, community or consumer representatives receive sitting fees. In the commercial world of focus groups, payment appears to be a key guarantee that a representative group can be assembled. If we are to take the issues of inclusion and representation seriously, perhaps something such as sitting fees is necessary.

The other key issue of this motion is one of access to advice or information from the semi-independent ACT Planning and Land Authority. I think we need to be cognisant of the fact that ACTPLA is not an autonomous authority; it is not structured in that way. While staff answer to the chief planning executive, the chief executive reports to the minister. And while the authority, in dealing with development applications, rightly is independent, when it comes to policy advice it is simply another government department.

Consequently, while I am not sure it is wrong to note the lack of confidence of the community in the planning process, I do not think we can, through this motion, argue that it is a bad thing and imply that the situation can be changed simply through a motion or that, through a motion, we should put an agency at odds with its enabling legislation. But I will come back to that later when I propose an amendment to part 2 (c).

I would also like to put on the record my perspective of the access to ACTPLA issue. I do think there is a danger that, by demanding unhindered access to the planning authority, members open themselves up to being agents for aggrieved developers and constituents demanding too much from a staff with other important responsibilities. More importantly, I would say we do run the risk of running political interference on a process that ought to be outside of politics. That, of course, is the value of the independents.

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