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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2580 ..

minister, who became the Minister for Planning by promising the world to people. So we should not be deleting words that draw attention and draw this government’s attention to the high level of dissatisfaction, not with the people in the Planning and Land Authority so much as the processes that grind people down. There is a lack of confidence and there is a real lack of access of members of this place to the chief planning executive and his staff and we should be putting an end to that.

We heard a whole lot of weasel words about how this is a hybrid authority. While ever members in this place cannot obtain, without being watched or without receiving permission, access to advice—and I think that the words that Ms Tucker has foreshadowed are better than the ones that I have suggested—we will not have an independent planning authority. Everyone in this town can go to the chief planning executive and seek his advice, except the members of this Assembly. The members of this Assembly must first ask permission of the Minister for Planning and his office. When the chief planning executive comes to see us, a member of his office must attend. And that is not how you have an independent planning authority who advises all of us. Yes, he is accountable first and foremost to the minister, but we should not be second-guessed; we cannot obtain confidential advice. We must put an end to that.

MS DUNDAS (9.23): I will address the amendment and the substantive motion, in the interests of time. I will start with the amendment and work backwards. I think the amendment guts this motion far too much. One of the key points of the motion put forward by Mrs Dunne is about community consultation and community involvement in the planning process. It is unfortunate that the minister is focused on only one part of this motion in relation to members’ access to the planning authority. That is why I will not be supporting the amendment moved by the minister. Ms Tucker has foreshadowed amendments, which I will be supporting. They address the minister’s concerns in relation to unfettered access, or extra resources being demanded of ACTPLA and the chief planning executive. I think they are worthy of support.

In relation to the substantive issue before us, I think it is important that we discuss the different areas raised by Mrs Dunne. We are acknowledging that it has been almost a year since the establishment of the ACT Planning and Land Authority. In that year some very good things and some not so good things have happened. It is unfortunate that, in nearly a year, we have seen a virtual absence of community engagement in planning. I stress the word “engagement” as opposed to “consultation”. I think “engagement” is the key, particularly in terms of assessing the community’s response to significant development applications and in generally seeking the community’s input into the development of planning ideas in the territory.

We have seen the premature dissolution of LAPACs and abortive attempts to implement community and planning forums. It is a great shame that, in the year we have had ACTPLA, we have had ongoing concerns around non-statutory consultation. The creation of ACTPLA gave the ACT a chance to start with a clean slate on planning issues and develop a new culture of engagement with the community. However, given the continuing mess that planning consultation has become over the last year, the opportunity is fast slipping away. I hope we have not lost that opportunity.

I think we all had high hopes for ACTPLA. It was clear during the debate we had on the establishment of the Planning and Land Authority that we wanted to see ACTPLA

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