Page 1478 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 17 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
COURT STRUCTURES IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY - REVIEW
Ministerial Statement and Paper
Debate resumed from 20 March 1991, on motion by Mr Collaery:
That the Assembly takes note of the papers.
MR JENSEN (3.28): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Curtis report has provided the community with an opportunity to consider the options for the future of our court system. In fact, this report now has been on the table for some time. It was tabled, I believe, by my colleague the Attorney-General in August 1990.
The final decisions which flow from the report and the subsequent community and professional input that follows will, I suggest, be important for the future of the court system and structure within the ACT; and, I think like all interested members of the ACT community, we all welcome the degree of debate that has taken place on this issue.
However, today I would like to restrict my remarks in the debate to the issue of planning appeals and the need that has been identified for changes in the approvals and orders section, as it now is, of the planning legislation. Of course, the section of the Curtis report this relates to is that on administrative appeals. Members are no doubt aware of an ongoing dispute in South Tuggeranong between two groups of residents or potential residents.
Mrs Grassby: We certainly know.
MR JENSEN: I have no doubt that it would not have got to this stage if the proposals for planning appeals in the government legislation had been in place prior to the decision being made. It is interesting to hear Mrs Grassby make a comment on that. I am not sure whether Mrs Grassby has been to any of the public meetings, but I know that Mr Connolly certainly has. In this case, they were meetings arranged by the Interim Territory Planning Authority, exercising its responsibilities under the guidelines for design and siting approvals, and I would suggest that that is probably one area in which some work must take place in the future. In fact, my recollection is that back in 1988, prior to the commencement of self-government, that exercise had in fact started.
I am sure that some of us are also aware of a similar argument some years ago when a group of residents attempted to have changes made to a design and siting approval after it had been granted. However, we all know that this battle was lost, at some cost to the residents, after the changes to the proposal only scratched the surface of the problem.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .