Page 2531 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 15 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
inappropriate for planning matters. Surely, Mr Speaker, we do not want another situation where the only avenue of appeal for residents is the expense of litigation in the Supreme Court.
The Rally believes that this proposal is against public consultation because of the degree of ministerial control over the appointment of members and action following reference to the council of issues and the report to the Minister. This proposal would appear to be seeking to lock the various interested parties into a process that would legitimise government decision making. This is a concern that some of us have had about the way in which the activities of the Estimates Committee would be received because it would be unlikely to change the shape of the minority Labor Government's budget. It was for this reason that a very strong statement at the start of the report was made, saying that the committee's report was not to be seen as an endorsement of the Government's budget.
What is really being proposed here is the concept of an advisory council with no real teeth or power - or independence, for that matter - to provide the Government with the support it needed to allow a project it wanted to go ahead regardless of possible effects on the environment. Might I suggest that one nominee from the environment movement is not enough, no matter how committed he or she is to the legitimate concerns of the environment and the rights of the residents to retain the quiet enjoyment of their lease. The process would develop into a permanent whitewashing process. The Rally would hope that, on the off-chance that this proposal is carried today, the environment movement would think long and hard before it committed itself to participation in this council.
The Rally believes that the current log jam in the processing of development proposals in the ACT is being caused by a failure of the current authorities to make decisions, despite the fact that the same basic procedures on policy plans that applied before self-government are still in place. (Extension of time granted)
I refer members to this special Gazette - the one that we all got today or yesterday - which provides details of all such processes and policies that were current at the time and the fact that certain draft proposals have been through the public consultation process and approved by the Executive without, I might add, any reference to the standing committee on planning. I am sure that members will recall the recent policy plan change that I have just mentioned in the Lyneham area. What I was referring to before was the special Gazette that was produced on 31 January which listed all those various NCDC policies that still applied in the ACT.
The process we have at the moment can be made to work if there is a will. The only factor missing is a properly constituted, non-legalistic appeals process, which
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .