Page 1982 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 60.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.02): This is the first of the clauses that I am going to oppose in regard to consultation protocols. According to the bill, when preparing draft variations to the territory plan the authority would be required to consult with offices and bodies that have particular responsibilities. Some are specifically ACT government agencies. Others, such as the ACT Heritage Council, are, in essence, advisory, while the National Capital Authority has a federal responsibility. Given that, the Greens would like the authority also to consult with ACT government agencies responsible for social outcomes, such as housing affordability, bodies like community councils—given that they have formal planning responsibilities, which I addressed at length this morning—and peak community advocacy groups such as ACTCOSS and the conservation council.
This bill is the result of six or seven years of moving away from community participation and engagement in planning decisions about suburbs and neighbourhoods by people who care. No doubt this is annoying to developers, bureaucrats and governments, but the community visions applied with the expertise of the bureaucrats have often been successfully brought together in well-facilitated, well-attended community consultations. For instance, there were many meetings about the Yarralumla brickworks. Community aspirations, developers’ hopes and Treasury coffers were abandoned and that still lies in abeyance. Better was the involvement of the Yarralumla school and community members in the making of tiles for the refurbished shopping centre. These are issues that I know about from being a community member of that suburb.
At one stage there were local area planning committees with a formal voice in both territory plan variations and in response to development applications. When deciding to terminate them, the government made a commitment to a neighbourhood planning process which would provide an agreed community values base for future developments and the establishment of community planning forums. Where government persisted with neighbourhood planning there have been some good outcomes, but there is no such process incorporated into this plan. In addition, the proposed community planning forums were abandoned.
I seek leave to table these newsletters which are called “Neighbourhood Planning in the ACT”. One is issue No 6 for February 2004 and one is issue No 7 for April 2004, just as a reminder of the kind of community engagement that ACTPLA used to participate in.
Leave granted.
DR FOSKEY: Both those newsletters advise people that the minister has decided to drop the proposed community planning forum, so I guess they are historical documents. The document assessing the ACT’s consultation mechanisms, which was produced in 2004 and proposing models for future meaningful consultation, had just one element out of all its recommendations, consultation with town and community councils, plucked out of it and then the document just disappeared. I am referring here to the Review of stakeholder engagement in ACT planning report from the National
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .