Page 2735 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
accommodation, that will put large parts of our outdoor public places in shadow and bury the new but inadequate community centre between larger office blocks.
The answer to most of the questions that this budget raises about planning are answered by planning reform—those two words. That is the next chapter: pioneering legislation, we are told. That is the next space to look for.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (10.34): In relation to this element of the appropriation the area of planning has obviously undergone some major changes of late, with the Minister for Planning recently releasing draft legislation for a new planning and development bill. In anticipation of this bill, the government has outlined an appropriation of $45.6 million in the 2006-07 budget to fund not only existing planning functions but also the new initiatives as outlined in the new bill.
On the face of it, we see that Mr Corbell’s planning portfolio has experienced changes in funding arrangements which relate primarily to the area of capital expenditure. They also appear to be more concerned with movements between the different agencies. No matter which way you cut it or on which departmental bottom line these items appear, capital works—and probably unnecessary capital works—have been one of the hallmarks of this government. The Minister for Planning has nevertheless demonstrated a keen enthusiasm for his new bill, which he explained in estimates. He said:
This is a major reform. Key elements of the reform include streamlining the development and assessment process.
Further on, he said:
Overall, I think everyone acknowledges that the package is a major step forward, a major reform that provides clarity and certainty for all parties.
We will see. The proof will be in the final performance, as to whether those outcomes are in fact delivered by this minister. Indeed, it is widely known that ACTPLA has faced considerable challenges in providing adequate planning services to the people of Canberra. There have been calls both from members of this Assembly and members of the public at large for the department to seriously address issues related to the cumbersome and inconsistent processes that are currently in place for approvals of planning decisions, the varying levels of professionalism, technical expertise and legislative knowledge the front-line staff and planners possess, and how the skills shortage that exists within the planning profession is adversely impacting on the quality of service delivery to the public. At different times we have talked about that issue, which I acknowledge is one of the challenges facing planning agencies throughout Australia.
From what I suppose is called the bigger end of town, I am reminded of a number of complaints by developers regarding the difficulties they have experienced while having their proposals reassessed. It seems that a recurrent theme amongst complaints is criticism of the quality of service that has been received. This has been seen both in a lack of consistency in advice provided by ACTPLA representatives and the disconnect between the early and later stages of the development approval process. I was disappointed to learn that valuable time and money have been wasted in revising
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .