Page 1798 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
community interests. These are very complex issues and we have a lot more coming up, but in the end we need to have that level of protection for the community. That is why I am not supporting these amendments and will put forward another set myself.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (8.38): This process has been approached by just about everybody who has been involved in the re-write of the Lands Act with a spirit of goodwill. As we sit here tonight debating these bills and passing these amendments the only great fear amongst the nine or 10 key groups that have helped in this process—I think the minister would say that they have been helpful in the main—is this change to the definition of “development” and the addition of the words “it is also using the land”.
As I said, everybody worked towards this outcome with a spirit of goodwill. At the end of the process all the other groups, bar the government, have one major area of concern. I believe that the government must take another look at what it is doing. I ask the minister to tell the Assembly, for instance, how this will affect the outcomes of the DAF. Is this consistent with DAF and what is going on in other jurisdictions, or are we yet again the only group or jurisdiction in the country that will be out of step? We are already out of step because we run leasehold instead of freehold, which adds to some of the confusion.
Back in 2001 as a minister I was talking about simplifying and harmonising the process so that businesses moving from state to state and particularly into the ACT’s jurisdiction were not suddenly confronted by a different process. I would appreciate the minister taking the time to tell us that this is consistent with the DAF process, that this is not out step with all other jurisdictions in the country, and that we are not yet again going out on a limb.
The minister referred tonight about the agenda that is being pursued. Over the past three years that agenda has been pursued collectively by all groups. Referring to the reform process I compliment those who have done the drafting, put it together, listened, and tried to come up with some legislation that will meet everyone’s needs. I also compliment the head of ACTPLA. In the main the process has gone very well. I compliment our planning spokesman for his input and I compliment the minister for at least getting to this point.
My problem now is that we are changing definitions. When we change fundamental definitions about development and where it is to go we are confronted with a problem. I think this concept will haunt the minister. I think the minister will find that he will be back here to revisit this issue in the not too distant future. People genuinely want to balance what they can do on their blocks of lands with the rights of their neighbours. In the past we have had quite a good process.
In the last couple of weeks all those to whom I have spoken have simply asked, “Why do we have to expand the definition in this way?” We have been given only one concrete example, that is, that a restaurant is to change to a nightclub. The government cannot give us any examples to show that the current definition does not work and that a change to the definition is required. This amendment will fundamentally change how people view the ACT at a time when we are struggling to gain investment. People will now say, “There are a number of different places in which we can invest our money.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .