Page 4227 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker and members, I appreciate the extension of time that I have had. There is a great deal more to be debated, and no doubt it will be debated in the detail stage, as far as this legislation and the draft Territory Plan go. I cannot express strongly enough the great disappointment that I feel as I read through the written statement on the draft Territory Plan and see a proposed transition from a strategic planning system, in which we can set out clearly our objectives and goals, to a zoning system that moves from the priority of the community interest to the priority of the developers' interest. I think this draft Territory Plan is, at the very least, a great disappointment.
MR HUMPHRIES (10.51): Mr Speaker, this is a quite important debate - one of the most important that the Assembly has engaged in - and in it it is appropriate to reflect on the objective that we are all trying to meet by enacting this proposed legislation. There may be differences in the house about what we are actually trying to do today, but from my and my party's point of view we would like to think the objective of bringing down both legislation of this kind and the draft Territory Plan which goes hand in hand with it is to simplify and make clear to citizens of the Territory, who must necessarily operate within the terms of these pieces of paper, the parameters within which they will have to operate, in other words, to make it easier and simpler for citizens of the Territory to understand and work with the planning laws with which they now will have to live.
In my view, that is very much a question of giving people, to the maximum extent possible, the right to use their land as they wish, within the limitations necessarily imposed upon them by the fact that they live in a community which has set certain standards of planning, which are not diminished, although they might change, under this legislation. Mr Speaker, I think it is important for us to bear in mind that therefore simplicity and clarity are aims which ought to be at the forefront of our thinking, and legislation which complicates and obfuscates the path that any citizen needs to travel when seeking to change, for example, the use he or she makes of their land would be regrettable.
In that context, I have to say that I see this legislation as, to some extent, a lost opportunity. It is a series of documents which exhibits a certain lack of imagination. As I have indicated, I think any legislation of this kind should simplify and streamline procedures that people use. It should make planning legislation and protection to the community not a burden. As I look through the many provisions of this legislation, albeit perhaps fewer than might otherwise have been the case, I cannot help but wonder whether any person seeking to make significant changes to the way in which they deal with their land would find themselves faced with an extremely difficult obstacle to overcome - that is, the sheer volume of paperwork and other steps that need to be taken to ensure that their wishes are ultimately carried out.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .