Page 1272 - Week 04 - Thursday, 10 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
with those that must be dealt with under the territory plan and those that are dealt with under the Planning and Development Act and its regulations. The regulation, as tabled, does not present the end of policy development but forms a platform to move forward.
In many of the matters raised by Dr Foskey during her address there are elements of broader development that is occurring both here in the ACT and at a national level. And many of the issues cannot and should not be considered in an ad hoc manner during a one-off debate in this place without proper consideration and consultation with both the community and stakeholders. I go so far as to say that effort would be better placed in working through these policy issues with the community stakeholders and the government rather than engaging in a motion such as this that puts at risk the operation of the new planning system.
The implications of the impact on activity in the territory, should this motion succeed today, would be immense. It is also critical in assessing this regulation that members fully understand its intent and function. It is essential that we carefully consider the implications of any proposed changes, as they can have significant, unrealised and unintended consequences.
As I indicated earlier, this regulation was not intended to significantly change policy other than where it was necessary for the implementation of the Planning and Development Act which was, by its intention, a system-reforming piece of legislation. Broad changes in environmental standards and building sustainability standards were not intended to be addressed in this stage of implementing the new system.
I need to assure Dr Foskey that there is significant work being undertaken in respect of these matters and, as they are progressed and the broad policy settings are established in an orderly and comprehensive way, this regulation and other statutory instruments will be changed to reflect new policy settings.
It is important to be mindful that the basis of these reforms is to remove some matters from requiring a development approval and minimising government intrusion into what are, in essence, simple building and development matters. However, the construction or development must be in accordance with defined standards. So I need to stress that this is not a free for all. Many of the issues raised by Dr Foskey would increase significantly the level of intrusion required and increase the time and cost in endeavouring to undertake activities regulated by the Planning and Development Act.
In respect to third party appeals, they have been an important issue raised and discussed at many forums during the development of the act and this regulation. It is a difficult task to attempt to attain a fair and equitable process that protects all members of the community. However, I feel that the regulation has achieved the correct balance for the community and seek to reiterate that the regulation is not intended to introduce major policy changes; rather, it simply supports the effective operation of the new planning system.
The community and government will benefit from allowing the act and the regulation to operate for a period, and the government will be monitoring the operation of the act and its subordinate parts, including this regulation, over the coming months. I indicate
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .