Page 327 - Week 01 - Thursday, 27 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
One process that the government—largely TAMS but also other relevant agencies—is currently undertaking is to review the design standards which all developers need to adhere to to ensure that they are best practice, they deliver sustainability long into the future and they are aligned with the territory plan. This is being done with red tape reduction in mind. We are aiming for a high level of infrastructure development, high quality, while at the same time creating a clear and certain environment so that developers clearly know what the rules are. TAMS are working closely with industry stakeholders to ensure that this review takes their views into account.
The ACT Greens advocated for the solar access provisions that were brought forward in variation 306, protecting solar access rights for new dwellings, as we discussed yesterday morning. Without laws and regulations, people would still be able to build houses that are completely inappropriate for Canberra’s extreme weather conditions, ignoring all the science and all the architectural research and the knowledge that has been gained over the last few decades. People who have benefited from these new laws appreciate them.
In the same vein, the ACT has quite tight laws and regulations about asbestos—its handling, safety around buildings, renovations, disposal, the keeping of a register. I do not think anybody doubts the necessity of those laws.
In this case, I suspect we come back to the definition and delineation between “necessary” and “unnecessary” regulations. I agree completely that we do not need regulations that duplicate other ones. For this reason, I fully support the ACT government’s current work in the red tape reduction task force to identify regulations which could probably be streamlined. I hope that today we hear some concrete suggestions—specific, useful ones—on sensible areas to tighten, rather than more hyperbole about red tape and nanny states. As I cited earlier, there are certainly different examples of where people think we need regulations.
I know the TAMS directorate is undertaking some other work in identifying regulations which can be better streamlined. The Public Unleased Land Act, PULA, is a direct result of this. PULA has provided the framework for greater flexibility for authorisations and has facilitated clearer guidelines and administrative processes, such as online smart forms for people who want to use unleased territory land for an event of some description. This is leading to better outcomes for the public. PULA now enables better protection of the amenity and natural value of public unleased land. It also facilitates better and fairer management of the use of that land without the clutter of excessive and prescriptive legislative requirements. PULA has reduced duplication of application processes, as permits can be authorised for two years—an extension from one year. Work is underway to further refine the application process so that previous applicants and application information can be auto-populated onto the application process.
I understand there is some frustration in the community about how difficult it can be to hold larger events and festivals and also to organise some sporting events. This is an area of work which will gain from red tape streamlining. I have started a project to try and tackle that, because in my time in the community I have certainly heard some clear feedback on that. There is also progress on outdoor dining permits and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video