Page 1438 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 17 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It has become clear that the procedure required under section 12A is too protracted for efficient administration, and that with the accelerated rate of development of the city -
and he was referring to Canberra -
the procedure needs to be revised to enable changes in the plan, especially minor changes, to be dealt with promptly.
In other words - and I am responding to this specific aspect of Mr Connolly's proposal - section 12A, in our proposition, has been in place in its present form since 1930. The ACT Law Office is not aware of any criticism, in all that time, of the way in which that provision has operated or, indeed, of any suggestion that it has not operated effectively.
No-one can say that we do not have a vigilant joint parliamentary planning committee over in the other house. As far as the Law Office is aware, the Commonwealth legislation has never included a deemed disallowance provision. Nor is the Law Office aware of any provisions in the planning legislation of the States or the Northern Territory which allow for the deemed disallowance of planning instruments. Indeed, in some jurisdictions there is no provision for the laying of plans before parliament at all. Approval may be solely restricted to the Minister, or Governor-in-Council.
I allude now to the legal advice we have received from independent attorneys - lawyer planners - in Sydney recently in relation to the draft Bill, suggesting that we already have an enlightened proposal in terms of accountability.
In jurisdictions where planning instruments are required to be laid before parliament, and may be disallowed, such as the Commonwealth and Victoria, the instruments may already be in effect at the time of their consideration by those parliaments. The scheme proposed for the ACT therefore is preferable in that the plan never comes into effect if the Assembly rejects it. That is an important point. This does recognise the pre-eminence of the Assembly in a way that the planning legislation in other jurisdictions does not. I believe that it reflects the pre-eminence that Mr Connolly and this side of the house also wish to give it.
The amendment of this procedure to include deemed disallowance of planning instruments would add uncertainty and confusion to the process. By the time the proposed planning instruments reached the Assembly, a wide variety of consultative processes would have already taken place, in addition to careful consideration by the Executive. A great deal of public time and money would have been expended. To allow all this to be upset merely because time cannot be found in the Assembly to debate a motion of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .