Page 4698 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine has expressed reservations about the discretion afforded to the Minister under subclause 18(2). I believe that I should point out that the discretionary power to direct an assessment is consistent with the principle that assessments are directed only after consideration of, and public consultation on, a preliminary assessment. The power to direct an inquiry does not necessarily stem from a preliminary assessment and is, as specified in subclause 134(1), a discretionary power of the relevant Minister.
Therefore, the discretion in subclause 18(2) is consistent with the framework and function of the declaration of assessments and inquiries. Not only would mandatory requirements be inconsistent with the body of the Bill, but they would also lead to the preparation of expensive and time consuming processes where no environmental impacts stem from a plan variation.
Mr Moore made some rather harsh remarks about the planning legislation and, I think, overstated the situation. Mr Moore wants this legislation to be seen as a zoning system, and so maintains that it is. But in so doing he misrepresents it entirely and neglects the degree of strategic planning that continues to be fundamental to the legislation. I believe that Mr Moore commented on the draft Territory Plan, even though he only had it in his hands, rather than on the Bill. But, given the relationship between the two documents, it is appropriate to respond at this time.
Firstly, the draft plan does not reflect the elements of a traditional zoning system. It does not bestow land use rights on lessees. Those are found, as before, in the Crown lease document. So, control of land use remains with the Government. Further, for the same reason, the plan will not permit speculative or windfall gain. There is a metropolitan strategy in the National Capital Plan and in some parts of the Metropolitan Policy Plan and Metropolitan Development Plan which were not revoked. Accordingly, there certainly is an existing metropolitan strategy.
The Australian Capital Territory Planning Authority is a statutory office under the Bill. The authority is constituted by the Territory Chief Planner. The position, clearly, has statutory independence as an authority established by the Bill. In fact, the authority, in some respects, is independent of the Minister as far as statutory powers are concerned. The location of the authority within the administrative structures of the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning is merely to provide administrative support to the authority and to locate it in a department with relevant functions to assist in coordination.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .