Page 2055 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have circulated my amendment and believe it was substantially agreed upon when we talked about it earlier.
I propose deleting the definition of “improvement” on lines 4 to 9 and replacing it with “any earthworks, planting or other work that affects the landscape of the land that is reasonably undertaken for rural purposes”. Those words may not yet be perfect, because I think the word “rural” is a bit vague. As far as we know “rural” means non-urban. In that case, what are rural purposes? I guess it means making sure a place does not become urban. We would look at that again further down the track, but I thought it was important to have something that was better than the 1925 definition that was in the legislation. I thank the minister for inviting me to move this amendment.
Mr Seselja suggested that I ought to have put a number of more considered and elegant amendments to this bill to address the Greens’ concerns. Let us be clear about all the work that has been done in relation to this bill. I made it clear in my agreement in principle speech that my staff and I have not developed more far-reaching amendments to debate this week, partly because in my office the detail became more difficult and pointless as we came closer to the time of this debate. My office requested briefings. Indeed, we would have loved some negotiations and discussions with ACTPLA and the minister’s staff in May, but the minister’s office was unable to oblige until two weeks ago. The meetings we have had with the minister’s office and with ACTPLA staff showed a lot of areas on which we could have reached agreement and come up with some better words. That would not have been a problem if this were a minority government. We could have sat around a table and worked out what we could all live with, and some of the Greens’ ideas would have probably gained support.
In that context, the work of parliamentary counsel within very tight frames would have been more purposeful. Furthermore, if we did not have sufficient time the debate could have concluded in September. However, where the government is in a take-it-or-leave-it position, where limited time is available to develop intelligent and viable amendments, my office and I came to the view that the best use of all our time was for me to flag our concerns and to put the general arguments for them. I am quite happy to revisit this bill following more detailed work early next year. I believe the ongoing issues will be raised at the next election as well. Whether or not we members raise them, I think the community will. I commend my motion to the Assembly.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.58): Indeed I did encourage Dr Foskey to move this amendment and signalled at that time that the government would agree with this amendment. In response to today’s final comments, I acknowledge that Dr Foskey and her office sought a meeting with me in my office. I think it was a matter of two weeks after I became planning minister. It would not have been a particularly constructive meeting because I needed time to get across some of the detail of this legislation.
I am pleased that officers from ACTPLA and my office were able to meet with the Greens, but it is important to note, though, that this bill was first tabled in December last year. There were ample opportunities to discuss it with the former planning
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .