Page 3275 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 21 August 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
do not want us talking about this failure, and why would they? It is very easy to draw a link between the logjam that is the DA system and building quality issues in the ACT.
I refer to the shutdown of the Republic site at Belconnen last month. Granted, I wrote to the minister about that site and asked some questions about how it was progressing. But what I was not aware of was that the builder had submitted a DA amendment back in February which had simply not been assessed in what any normal individual would consider to be a timely manner. I guess we can put two and two together and guess that the builder got to a point on the build whereby they had to make a decision on whether to shut down their own site or just wait for this DA assessment process.
Bear in mind that we are talking about the biggest building site in the territory. Because of an unacceptable delay in the DA process the builder—and again I am just extrapolating—had to choose between shutting down their own site or pushing on in the hope that their amendment would be approved. Neither of those options is palatable at all.
But what we see time and again from this government is that they have no understanding of how to run a business. They have absolutely no understanding of the concept that time is money and that if you have to sit on assets, if you have to blow out construction time, if you have to stand down workers because the DA has not been fully assessed, it costs money. It forces some builders into a situation where they must rush to complete some tasks in what become unrealistic time frames. And that scenario does not play out well for anyone. That is just the reality. That is just the practical reality of the situation.
As I stressed back in April, development applications are very much the vital gateway in getting things built in Canberra, everything from extensions to the family home, the addition of so-called granny flats, through to the largest of residential and commercial projects. The essence of this motion, in its original form and with the amendment tacked onto it, is the enhancement of the community’s understanding and the appreciation of what is happening with the development application production line.
Our confidence has been shaken somewhat as processing times increase and impose damage and stress on those impacted by the delays. What we are asking for is a greater focus on transparency of the resource inputs dedicated to DA assessment and how these relate to the associated outputs. It is a classical input-output ratio analysis, which I would presume all directorates within the public administration utilise to help them decide how to optimise their efficiency and effectiveness.
In no way does this motion seek to highlight the personal details of individual staff, which has been suggested to me by the Greens, but it seeks an insight into the process and its throughputs. These insights would help in finding opportunities not only in improved efficiency and staff productivity but also in greater client responsiveness and satisfaction.
I had hoped that this government would have no hesitation in supporting the motion because what I am calling for is nothing less than a core tenet of best practice
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video