Page 1781 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the government concurs with some of my and my office’s proposals, if this week’s process was slowed down, some of these could actually be taken on board before the bill commences. Nonetheless, these bills have failed to deal with the most fundamental issues that confront us in planning for the world in which we live and in addressing the social and environmental challenges that we face.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (6.04): At last, Mr Speaker, we can debate the Planning and Development Bill. The major act that this bill is doing away with is the Land (Planning and Environment) Act of 1991. Some of us, including you, Mr Speaker, were here at the time while others have learnt subsequently of the history of the passage of that piece of legislation. It was a bad piece of legislation that has been hanging around our necks ever since.
In 1995, with the arrival of the Carnell Liberal government, there was a review of the land act, known as the Stein report. As I have previously lamented in this place, it was a shame that more of the amendments to the land act recommended by the Stein report were not implemented at that time. If they had been, we would not have had the terrible hotchpotch of a planning system that we have had for the last 16 years.
Planning legislation since the beginning of self-government has been a mess, and the accounts of the passage of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act of 1991 are not edifying. When I came into this place and acquired the job of shadow minister for planning and chairman of the planning and environment committee, from time to time I went back to the legislation and said, “Why do we do it like this?” It often turned out that some of the more arcane and difficult things that arose in the current legislation came about because of an amendment that was passed, often literally written on the back of an envelope in the chamber while the debate was going on.
Occasionally there was no debate about it, and one example is the process whereby variations to the territory plan are referred to the planning and environment committee. I became the chairman of the planning and environment committee at the end of 2001 and was presented with a whole range of variations to the territory plan. So I thought, “Well, let us see how this works.” Quite literally, no one knows why it worked. There was an amendment moved by a member. That member did not even speak to the amendment to justify why a variation to the territory plan should be referred to the planning and environment committee for inquiry and report. The planning and environment committee has no role of veto, no role like that at all. Another layer of bureaucracy, for want of a better word, was put into the legislation.
I am very pleased, Mr Speaker, that we are here today debating this bill. I will just say that it is probably five years and possibly 10 years too late. I will put on the record and repeat the position that I have taken since I first become a member in this place. One of the first things I did in this place was to move a motion requiring the government to review the land act. Twice in the course of 2002 I moved various motions to attempt to require the government to review the land act.
In the context of the passage of the Planning and Land Bill in 2002, I held the view—and I still hold it today—that less than half the work had been done; the most important part of the work was left undone. The passage of the Planning and Land Bill, the establishment of the planning and land authority and the land
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .