Page 3290 - Week 10 - Thursday, 19 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I did not attend any of the information sessions presented to the building and development industries—for obvious reasons; I do not believe I was invited—and they may have been favoured by a different process. The reason I say that is that there is broad satisfaction in that sector with the legislation because that legislation appears to respond to many of their concerns. I say this without any reflection on the ACTPLA officers who conducted the information sessions. They impressed me with their commitment and their knowledge of the proposed changes. But I have certainly observed them becoming very weary of repeating the same information ad nauseam, which was observable at the session I attended as they began the new round talking about the legislation itself.
I cannot comment on the extent to which submissions from that first round of consultations were taken into account in the draft legislation, because those submissions were never made public. However, the suggestions in the submissions I received from community organisations do not appear to have been taken up in the draft legislation. I believe that the consultation process conducted by the planning and environment committee provides a forum for community and business sector organisations to present their views and be heard. However, it is a pity that due to the short time available for this inquiry the report is, of necessity, selective in the choice of issues it covered. I dwelt on the consultation process for this legislation in some detail because the consultation, deficient though I deem it to be, will be the last chance for the community to participate in decision making about planning in the ACT. That, indeed, is one of the major themes of the legislation.
I will now comment on recommendations in the report itself. Recommendation 1: I am disappointed that the committee, perhaps because of its government majority, did not require the territory plan to be a disallowable instrument. Given the lack of opportunity for public comment, it is more than ever crucial that the elected Assembly has a place in the process.
Recommendations 2 to 10: ecologically sustainable development received some attention from the planning and environment committee, appropriately. I note that ACTCOSS and the Commissioner for the Environment were both concerned that the legislation offers specific measures to achieve the social, environmental and economic aspirations of the people of the ACT. However, the conservation council felt that short-term economic and financial interests were prioritised over environmental and social concerns. Indeed, the planning legislation confirms remarks made by ACTPLA’s CEO that social aspects are outside of his department’s purview. There used to be a time when social planners were an integral part of ACTPLA.
Increasing the ability of the market—a term which is really code for developers and others with capital to invest—to influence residential and commercial development in the ACT is likely to be detrimental to the very qualities that have hitherto underpinned the territory’s planning regime. Indeed, planning is the first major intervention available to governments to set the framework for the economic, social and environmental impact of any built development and of any society that lives in it.
As Dr Purdie pointed out, we will not safeguard sustainable development if we just “give regard” to it; we must give effect to it. I am pleased that the committee took the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .