Page 1479 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 17 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is of some concern that this Assembly has yet to pass the necessary legislation. However, I also believe, as does the Opposition if the statements by Mr Connolly are to be accepted, that we must ensure that the new legislation is as right as it possibly can be from the start. However, this means a large amount of community input on the legislation, upon which the Government, in the first instance, and the Assembly, in the second, need to make final decisions. That will come in time, we hope, for its implementation on 1 July 1991. However, I would expect that, while we will do our best to get it right, there are bound to be some teething problems as well as issues on which the Government chooses not to accept alternative proposals for policy reasons.
There is one issue on which there is no doubt, and that is the need to remove the Supreme Court from the appeals process and develop a system which allows for the citizens of Canberra - be they residents or developers - to have their day in court without the expense of QCs and the escalation in the complexity of issues that such representation implies. The problem of deciding the extent and nature of the appeals process was obviously one of the reasons why it took so long for the Follett Labor Government to table anything on the planning legislation - until the end of 1988, when incomplete drafting instructions - - -
Mr Connolly: Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have listened to this for some minutes. We are supposed to be discussing the court structure and Mr Jensen seems to be reading a speech on the planning process. I am wondering whether the court structures paper has got lost and the planning paper is being read as a result. It does seem to be a strain on relevance.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Connolly. Mr Jensen, if you could get back to the court structures review - - -
MR JENSEN: Could I refer Mr Connolly and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to page 72, et al, of the Curtis report, which deals with administrative appeals and the planning appeals process, which fits into this particular area. So, as I indicated, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it is quite appropriate for me to talk about planning appeals because, as Mr Connolly well knows, the planning appeals procedure and processes are proposed to be included in the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, to which this particular matter refers. So I would suggest that, once again, Mr Connolly has been a bit too quick off the mark. You should wait until you have listened to what I have to say before you stick your oar in. Take your learner's plates off, Mr Connolly, and just be a little more patient.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .