Page 1983 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Institute for Governance. It is a very useful document and still has validity today. It is one the new minister would do well to read. There was also for some time a higher level planning and land council whose expertise could well have fed into the development of draft variations, but it was shut down on the basis that it had too much to say and that not everything it said was complimentary about the government or its agencies.
Consequently it is not acceptable to simply cut the consultation on development and plan variations down to the statutory bodies whose approval, by definition, is required. Nor is it acceptable that no environmental or social impact analysis is required. The community has the ability to provide this expertise, but its knowledge needs to be valued and filtered into the authority’s processes by environmental and social planners. The planning and land management group used to have social planners. I do not know if we still have them in ACTPLA. This relationship should be collaborative. Unfortunately, because the government and its agencies have often made up their minds about the basic structures of their proposals before they go out for the community to comment on, the relationship often becomes combative and community engagement comes to be seen as a hindrance by the government and its agencies.
One of the tables in the National Institute for Governance’s document is “Arnstein’s Ladder”. It is a very famous piece of work that most people who study community development have looked at at some time or other. It is a ladder of eight steps in community participation. It looks very much to me as though ACTPLA’s consultation stops at the fifth step on the ladder, placation and justification, which reads:
For example co-option of hand-picked “worthies” on to committees. It allows citizens to advise or plan but retains for power holders the right to judge legitimacy or feasibility of the advice.
That is when we had the forums that we no longer have. So, we are not doing too well on the consultation ladder. In addition to expanding on the requirements of the authority to scope out the expected impact of these variations, and work more assiduously to inform relevant bodies and the general public of any proposed changes, we need to see more comprehensive commitment to community engagement incorporated into the legislation. In one of the newsletters that I have tabled there is a historical section on community engagement. That is also worth reading.
This could be the right location for varying the territory plan, but the same issues come back when we look carefully at substantial development approvals, the management of concessional leases and environmental impact assessments. There is no good reason why the minister’s duty to table EISs in the Assembly has been removed. There is no good reason why the Assembly should not decide which EISs should be the subject of further scrutiny. While I am happy to look at future amendments to the act, the Greens would propose a more thoughtful and comprehensive approach to community engagement to take to the community at the next election.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.10): The government supports clause 60. It substantially mirrors the existing provisions in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .