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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3771 ..

MRS DUNNE (8.22): The Liberal opposition opposes these clauses. Basically, part 10 of the bill creates parallel approvals for development applications. In the in-principle debate I drew attention to how this departs from accepted government policy, not just in this territory but also across the nation, when we are trying to move towards an integrated development approval process. That is not to say that we should do away with heritage councils and that land managers should do everything. However, when it comes to the process of approvals the Heritage Council should be consulted, its advice should be sought and accepted and the approval process should be a one-stop shop.

I have thought long and hard about better ways of improving the work that is done by the government. Quite frankly, all its attempts to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear have failed. As a result, it is most expedient that we oppose these clauses and revert to the provisions in part 6 of the Land Act for the approval of development applications. If these clauses succeed I flag that we will have to resubmit clause 26 (2) (a) and I foreshadow that there will be a consequential amendment. The process that has been set up by the government—a process that has been roundly criticised by all involved in development and building, and that includes not just bloated plutocrats but also people in the union movement who have spoken to me on this subject—is enormously cumbersome. That process goes against the spirit of everything that successive planning ministers have been working towards over a period of about five years through the Development Assessment Forum.

When officials asked me whether this process harmonised with the Development Assessment Forum it was patently clear to me that no-one had thought about it. It was painful and distressing to discover that I was not the first person to raise the issue of how this harmonises with the Development Assessment Forum. The Property Council, the HIA, the MBA, the Institute of Planning, the Property Institute and even Uncle Tom Copley have raised this issue. Anyone involved in property development and building, on either side of the fence, has realised that this is a problem. We have set up a system that will ensure that the Heritage Council looks at development applications and, within a period of 15 days, makes a decision in relation to them. However, there are no guarantees.

The Housing Industry Association approached the minister and asked for a deeming provision to ensure that, if there was no response within 15 working days, a development application would be deemed to have been approved, which has not happened. we have here is the potential for breaking down an integrated system. On other occasions Mr Corbell has spoken in this place about the importance of an integrated development approval system. We are breaking down that system, as we were going to do with the tree protection legislation, which thankfully has gone the way of all flesh and we might never see it in this Assembly again.

I hope that the process of finalising the Development Assessment Forum progresses far enough to ensure that no-one comes back with anything other than a one-stop shop for development approval. In this case the Heritage Council, or the conservator, can exercise many powers but only one land approval authority, in this case ACTPLA, should be able to sign off on any application. The process that is set out in part 10 of the bill is cumbersome. Mr Speaker, I have pointed out before that the flowchart in the bill is the

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