Page 1346 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 June 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (3.00): Here we are, desperately close to the end of the parliamentary term, and we have a bill from my Greens colleague Ms Le Couteur which deals with and delves into some fairly complex and intricate spaces in the planning area, certainly as outlined by Mr Gentleman.
I would say that I have enjoyed my time here with Ms Le Couteur. Many of my Liberal friends are somewhat surprised when I tell them that, during my time on the planning committee with her, she and I discovered quite quickly that we had a lot in common in this policy space. I applaud Ms Le Couteur and Jason Forest from her office for having the courage to put this bill together, but such is the complexity involved here that there are some aspects of it that require some additional scrutiny. Time and again, in our history as a city, we have seen the extremely negative results of hurriedly prepared planning legislation, and I do not want this document to join that conga line.
Having said that, there are a number of aspects of this bill which the Canberra Liberals would be happy to support. Certainly, amending the public register requirements so that we can all see the documentation around DAs after they have been finalised makes a lot of sense. With some of the changes around public consultation and the requirement to state whether further information has been found—sure, why not? We are cautious about some new consideration of merit track DAs, because I think we need a thorough investigation of what this change would actually achieve. We are cautious about a number of things in this bill.
Mr Stanhope and Mr Corbell, in their time here, went to great lengths to separate the planning directorate from this parliament. A number of the clauses in this bill seek to change that, and I think we need to consider very carefully whether or not we want to further politicise planning. I am not sure it is something that we can just sign off on at a minute to midnight because some people thought that it was a good idea—however good it sounds on the surface.
When it comes to trees and tree protection, there needs to be more investigation of the relationship between the Tree Protection Act and the Planning and Development Act. This stuff is way too important to get wrong. I have to concede—and I know I will get agreement from Ms Le Couteur on this—that non-executive members have a very tough time constructing legislation, in a portfolio space like this one, without the resources of the directorate. It is close to impossible. It is not impossible but it is close to impossible.
I received an extensive briefing from the planning directorate on this bill, and executives pointed out some potential major flaws in it. Some aspects of it were thought to be unworkable.
I understand that there is an agreement in place for this bill to be adjourned after the in-principle debate and for it to come back to this chamber later in the term. I would love to have been a fly on the wall at that cabinet meeting. That being the case, I am not sure that it is beneficial for me to discuss it much further because my understanding is that, when it returns, it will be in a very much amended state. I understand that we are at the divorce time of the cycle, but it is pleasing to see that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video