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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2578 ..

But there are reasonable questions of access. There are matters of process and information that are managed independently by ACTPLA and that would be appropriate and timely for ACTPLA to address. (Extension of time granted.) The process of negotiating your way through a minister’s office, when we are dealing with matters independent of the minister, can be too slow and prescriptive. I think it would be to our mutual advantage if arrangements for appropriate direct access could be made.

Now to the details of this motion: I have circulated a revised amendment, which is deletes 1 (d). I’ve already explained why that is. But I do not have any trouble with the rest of part 1. I think I have canvassed the value of establishing a widely accepted consultation process. I am sure the government is of the view that it is precisely doing that. The implications that confidence does need to be restored, despite the government view to the contrary, I think, simply reflect some of the tumultuous processes of the past few years, and I do not think it is objectionable.

I would say that we all want to see a truly integrated planning approval system, and I would be confident that the government would argue again that it is happy to do that and, indeed, is doing that. I think there are differences in our interpretations of a truly integrated planning approval system, but I do not think we can go into that debate further at the moment.

Finally, I think I have an amendment that gives the chief planning executive the necessary discretion. I believe that, by specifying the matters open to members to ask ACTPLA for information on—that is, planning matters which reflect its independent decision-making capacity—the line between policy and implementation is clear. Giving the chief planning executive the discretion in providing that information or advice, I believe, removes the danger of unreasonable intervention or interference in the operations of ACTPLA.

I move the revised amendment circulated in my name.

Mrs Cross: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: sorry, it is very difficult to concentrate on Ms Tucker’s speech when the Chief Minister is speaking without pressing the mute button.

MR SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms Tucker has the floor. Ms Tucker, you can’t move that at this point.

MS TUCKER: No, I understand. I withdraw that. I’ll wait until Mr Corbell’s amendment’s been voted on—is that correct? Then I’ll move mine.

MR SPEAKER: Well, that’s what will have to happen.

MS TUCKER: Yes, sure.

MRS CROSS (9.18): Mrs Dunne’s motion has drawn attention to a number of planning problems that seem to be becoming increasingly familiar in this territory. These problems are giving rise to an increasingly wide sense of frustration, not only among

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