THE new chair of the ACT Legislative Assembly’s Planning and Environment Committee, Vicki Dunne, says she would like her committee to put more emphasis on the environmental big picture and less on neighbourhood disputes over who builds what where.
She does not want the committee to be a de-facto appeals tribunal on planning matters, arguing that there are enough hoops to jump through in the current process without this committee becoming another one. She does not want the committee to be the arbiters of good taste. Questions of setbacks, heights and colours should be left to the development application process.
It seems Mrs Dunne is taking an unnecessarily stand-off approach. In doing so she underrates the role of the committee of which she is chair. The committee – in its former guise as the committee for Urban Services — has already had a period of reluctance to engage actively in the planning process and debate in the city.
The Planning and Environment Committee should engage itself in land-use issues. Obviously, it should not be a court of appeal for every development application. On the other hand, it should not wash its hands and say that whatever the bureaucrats approve should go or allow as first in, first served, build-what-you-like mentality which has prevailed int he past to public detriment.
The committee has several critical roles. First, given that the Government of the day in the ACT will invariably be in minority, the committee has a powerful role in checking what government does, by reporting to the Assembly as a whole in an informed way after listening to submissions from a range of views in the community. Sometimes the committee should advise that the issue is of such small moment that the development process can handle it. Someone it should advise that the issue is of significant magnitude that the representatives of the people in the Assembly should intervene – it may be to insist that a development or change of land use goes ahead it may be to block it, or elements of it because it does offend against good taste, community expectation, environmental standards and so on. Sometimes those decisions can be made about quite small developments.
The people of the ACT have a right to expect that their parliament engages itself in questions which affect their lives.
Mrs Dunne should have a greater appreciation of the power and responsibility of her position. She is from the Opposition party, yet she chairs a committee. This is because the Government does not have a majority so cannot hog the chair of every committee. This is healthy, provided the committees keep the government and the bureaucracy in check when needed.
Mrs Dunne should give less emphasis on the environmental big picture – that is for government policy and legislation on the floor of the House – and give greater attention to the detail of what is happening with land use on the ground. Detail is the job of committees.
Detail is particularly important when dealing with development-specific changes to the Territory Plan. Sometimes the plan has to be changed to allow certain developments in certain places. In thse instances the committee has a role in questioning processes.
Mrs Dunne is right when she says that with every variation the committee should ask the question, “”Is it in the best interests of the territory to change the use of this land?” The asnwer to that must not be some short-term financial gain to the government or other parties. Some other questions also have to be asked, “”Is the proposed use the BEST use? Is the use in the long-term interests of Canberrans?”