Page 1001 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I should point out that substantial progress has been made in other areas, including the appointment of a fund manager and an operational finance manager, and the selection of a consultant to carry out necessary preparatory work that will underpin the board's project assessment and fund allocation activities. Nevertheless, the trust cannot legally commence these activities until legislation is enacted. I should also add that already a number of submissions have been sent to the trust proposing a wide variety of interesting and potentially very useful projects. This demonstrates not only the high priority the ACT community places on road safety but also how well it is putting its support behind this important road safety initiative.
Again it is appropriate to commend NRMA Insurance Ltd on their very public-spirited approach to this problem of excess profits. This is a unique solution. A company which has benefited from an excess profit situation is prepared to put the proceeds back into the community. It is also, I think, appropriate for me in the introductory speech to formally thank those members of the community who are serving on the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust board. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Westende) adjourned.
LAND (PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT) ACT - PROPOSED VARIATION
TO TERRITORY PLAN - - DESIGN AND SITING POLICIES FOR TOWNHOUSE, COTTAGE AND COURTYARD BLOCKS
Motion for Rejection
MS SZUTY (11.29): Madam Speaker, I move:
That the Assembly reject the variation to the Territory Plan amending the design and siting policies for townhouse, cottage and courtyard blocks presented on 16 June 1992.
Referring again to the platform on which I stood for election, the first principle governing my approach to planning is the "empowering of individuals through open democratic processes". The changes enshrined in the draft variation, we were informed, had been administered by discretion for some seven years. However, we must not have draft variation by attrition. The proper way to enact permanent policy change is by community consultation, and I take exception to the Leader of the Opposition's remarks, made in this Assembly on Tuesday, interpreting my remarks as requiring that every single request for a variation would have to be individually open for community consultation. I made it clear on Tuesday, in presenting my dissenting report, that I feel that the most important issue is that changes of policy, such as that which was placed before the committee in this instance, be open to public scrutiny.
Under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 the Executive can, by instrument, allow the ACT Planning Authority to dispense with the need for full public consultation, provided that the authority obtains such information about public attitudes as is reasonable in the circumstances. The committee was informed that the ACT Planning Authority had consulted with the Master Builders Association and the Housing Industry Association. While it would appear that the Planning Authority thought that this consultative process was sufficient, I see no reason to accept that their interests are the same as those of the wider community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .