Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1507 ..

the legislation by officials of the former Department of the Environment, Land and Planning, the Law Office and the Chief Planner. During the latter part of 1993 DELP progressed a number of amendments to the Land (Planning and Environment) Act to incorporate changes recommended in the report on the draft Territory Plan. During that time the committee was involved in a number of significant draft variations to the plan.

On 1 July 1994 the committee renewed its call for public submissions on the inquiry, and 73 submissions were received, many submitters requesting the opportunity to appear before the committee. Some of the submissions were also relevant to the inquiries to be conducted by Mr Robert Lansdown, and copies of relevant submissions were forwarded to him. The committee held its hearings over four days in September 1994. Submissions were heard from numerous individuals, business groups, the Housing Industry Association, the Planning Institute, the Law Society, the Heritage Council, conservation groups, community and residents groups, a local builder, the Land and Planning Appeals Board, DELP officials, and the Chief Planner.

The committee produced its report on 7 December 1994. The report contains 31 recommendations covering a wide range of planning and leasing issues. The Government response indicates agreements to the majority of the committee's recommendations. A number of recommendations are conditionally agreed on the basis that the particular issue is proposed to be dealt with in a manner which differs from that suggested. Ten recommendations are not agreed, either because the recommendation is inconsistent with Government policy or because Parliamentary Counsel has advised that the recommendation is inappropriate. Any recommendations flowing from the inquiry into leasehold which may impact on the committee’s recommendations will be addressed by the Government when they become available.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.


Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

MR SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Mr Connolly proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Assembly for discussion, namely:

The need to abandon the second $700,000 phase of the discredited Booz Allen health consultancy and so avoid wasting further resources.

MR CONNOLLY (3.55): It is perhaps unfortunate that today is budget day and, as a result, there is massive interest from the Government benches in this important issue, but it is too important not to raise it on the first day of sitting. This Liberal Government has announced that nearly $1m is to be spent on consultancies to effectively gut the Canberra health system. We were critical of the need for any consultancy, given the long history of outside external reviews of ACT Health and, in particular, the very substantial task that was done only last year by Arthur Andersens, which benchmarked a whole range

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .