Page 4117 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I must mention one thing in relation to this matter of disallowance. Mr Wood no doubt will recall, if he casts his eye over the joint report of the planning and environment committees, that a recommendation of that type was put forward by my colleague Dr Kinloch and me.
Mr Wood: It wasn't in your legislation.
MR JENSEN: It was in the recommendation, Mr Wood. It was not my legislation, as you know; it was Mr Kaine's legislation.
Mr Wood: But it wasn't there, was it? You were the Executive Deputy.
Mr Collaery: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Bill introductions are usually heard in relative silence. I do not believe that Mr Jensen has been given a fair go.
MR SPEAKER: I uphold your objection, Mr Collaery. Mr Wood, please desist.
MR JENSEN: It is appropriate that this legislation introduced today obtain a speedy passage.
There is one other factor I should comment on before I refer to the various clauses of the Bill. I am referring, of course, to the use of defined land under the provisions of the interim legislation to reduce the amount of community consultation on later changes to an area identified as defined land. A major concern has been the use of these provisions to set the general principles of development for a large part of the Gungahlin area by way of a variation to the plan for six suburbs, which we are advised will provide over 8,000 new residential units, or approximately four years' worth of new residential blocks, based on current growth rates and projections.
It is the view of the Rally that the community must have some say in the final development conditions that are to apply in an area. It may well be that the Territory Plan will solve some of these problems. However, the plan is not in place and, until it is, it is considered necessary to ensure that legislation that was designed to operate with an improved Territory Plan is not used to sidestep community consultation. The key reason for this Bill being introduced today is the delay by the Government and the indication by the Minister in the Estimates Committee, under questioning, that they would not be bringing in this Bill until 1 July 1992. I repeat that that is why it has been necessary for the Rally to bring forward this Bill today.
The Bill I put forward will put defined land on hold by deleting reference to it from the current interim legislation. It may well be that the problems of developers having to make decisions on proposals which
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .