Page 4640 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
strongly about the requirement for those residents who participated in the consultation process on projects such as West Belconnen to purchase copies of the implementation plan and the environmental impact statement.
One of the issues related to community consultation is the availability of information and access to that information. It is all very well to say that people can purchase those documents or read them in the library. I am afraid the system does not necessarily work that way, particularly when people have spent a considerable amount of time preparing comments on information they have already received. Members will no doubt recall the comments I made last month about the large volume of draft variations that have seen the light of day recently. Indeed, one of them was finalised in the Assembly yesterday.
We must never forget that community groups have a role to play, and any attempt, however innocent, to restrict the time available for the community to have a say, particularly on contentious planning variations, is not to be supported. A cynic, and I try hard not to be one on planning matters, might well say that this recent influx of draft variations has been designed to help slow down the comment on the plan. Maybe some proposals could be allowed through that process because of our Assembly workload and the workload of those many volunteers in the community who are committed to a well-planned and affordable city and want to ensure that it stays that way.
The Rally will be moving similar amendments to those proposed in the Interim Planning (Amendment) Bill we introduced some time ago. These amendments are required to ensure that the Executive is not able to put forward a proposal and finalise the variation until the Assembly has completed its assessment. Much was said yesterday about the need for a change in the process, especially a process to allow for appeals against planning decisions on the merits of the proposal. Narrow legal decisions based on fine points of law should not be part of our planning process.
While this legislation does not establish the sort of stand-alone tribunal envisaged by Rally policy, division 5 of the legislation provides for the review of all decisions outside the Supreme Court. I know that all members of the community fully support that proposal. It has long been recognised that the Supreme Court is not the place to argue these questions, for a number of reasons, the cost to those seeking to appeal being a major concern.
The legislation before us today also provides for a form of third-party appeal. However, much of what can be appealed against will be in the plan, and it was for this reason that we in the Rally were concerned that the plan was not available when the debate started. Now that we have seen the plan and the wide degree of discretion proposed by the plan, we have some concerns. I am sure that, if the plan
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .