Page 5004 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 11 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So, before they even start they are already recognising they will have formal errors, or there is a fair chance that they will. That sort of attitude about formal errors, or any errors, certainly reflects that they are not going to take a professional approach to this particular issue.
Mr Jensen: That is disgusting.
MR MOORE: It is there, Mr Jensen. You can see it is there.
Mr Jensen: No-one makes a mistake? Even Mr Connolly made a mistake in the Assembly.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR MOORE: We quite accept that individuals make mistakes. However, with something as significant as preparing a plan, and the drafts of plans, we expect a very thorough approach. The issue of appeals is of greatest concern to me. It is quite clear that there will be no third-party appeals throughout this period under the Interim Planning Bill - while the new Planning Authority exists - prior to the new package of legislation.
It seemed to me that a reasonable compromise was available, and is still available, and that is to add to this Bill provision for an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which would not be particularly difficult to write into this legislation. It would probably not need to be as complicated as the one that is in the draft legislation. It would have removed that "blank cheque" that Mr Connolly talked about, and would have given members of the public a little more confidence in the planning of Canberra during this period. It would give them a little more confidence to know that members who had been elected on that sort of issue would be actually sticking by their guns.
The interesting thing about the National Capital Plan and the transition period is, of course, that during the transition period the ACT Government has been bound by the policies of the NCDC. That has, of course, meant a lack of flexibility. There has been room to vary those plans. That need to vary the plans is tied in with this particular plan as well. However, quite early in the Bill we have the ability to deal with it in stages and parts. The notion of dealing in bits and pieces really makes us question to what extent the Planning Authority and the Government are intending to produce a coherent strategy. It gives a great deal of room for movement, and certainly brings to mind a question about a coherent strategy.
As I have indicated that I shall not be opposing the Bill in principle, I will be seeking from the Chief Minister an assurance that a coherent strategy is what we should be looking at. That is exactly what a plan should be. A
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .