Page 1967 - Week 06 - Friday, 6 May 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the period July 2002 to March 2005. Of the sample that the Auditor-General examined, 70 per cent of non-single residential DAs failed to meet their statutory timeframes.
It continues on to say that guidance material for staff and applicants is so extensive that it can be difficult to understand; checklists, which are designed to ensure consistency with legislation and guidelines, are not used consistently and are not always completed; fees are not clearly identified on DA forms and, due to the absence of receipt numbers recorded, it could not be demonstrated that all payable fees and charges have been collected. Consultation occurs but much of it is of reduced value because ACTPLA fails to provide feedback on comments and input, and often consultation occurs too late in the process to make any real difference to the outcome of a project or issue.
These are just some of the findings that came out of the report. As I have said, no doubt there is much more. As I make my way through it, no doubt we will want to keep the people of the ACT informed as to the real state of the development application process and some of the real concerns around that.
Much of what we have been hearing from people looking to extend, from people looking to build, from builders and from people involved in the planning process, is reflected in this report. I guess the real message is that the minister can no longer say it is just the usual suspects, that it is just the opposition whining on about this and that.
The Auditor-General, who we would all agree is fairly objective in her approach, has brought down a fairly damning indictment of the processes. As I say, the report reflects a lot of the concerns that have been expressed to my office over the period in which I have been in this place.
I want to put on the record that this confirms that, and that I do not think anything in the report would be a surprise to people who have been closely involved in the planning process, but it may well be a surprise to many residents of the ACT who have not been involved in it. I think it is important that we put that message out there.
The other aspect of this is that it requires a response. It requires a serious response from the minister and from the government. I know there is a review of the legislation going on. That is important, but this report goes to a lot of procedural flaws.
MR SPEAKER: The Auditor-General’s report will also be in front of the public accounts committee.
MR SESELJA: So I cannot speak to it?
MR SPEAKER: It is the adjournment debate, and we are usually fairly flexible on that. If you are anticipating a discussion of it in the public accounts committee, it might be a whole wasted effort on your part.
MR SESELJA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it brings to light the importance of some of the procedural flaws highlighted in this report, and it requires a response from government. I look forward to that process taking place, and I look forward to a significant response from this minister to what is quite a damning report.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .