Page 4711 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would be interested, however, before we formulate our final position on this matter, to hear what the attitude of the Government is going to be to the passage of the interim planning legislation, which we believe will provide some very important constraints over the appeals process. At the moment we effectively do not have an appeals process. The Rally's amendment to the Interim Planning Act was going to provide some form of appeals process via this Assembly.
I know that there are some people who think this is not an appropriate place for that sort of appeal to take place. But might I suggest to you that in a house of Assembly with only 17 members, and without any house of review, we believe, and always have believed, that it is appropriate for a committee like the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure to provide that element of review before final decisions are taken in relation to planning matters. That is why the amendment that we put forward required the Planning Authority to provide the committee with information which would enable it to look at all the issues; maybe give the proposal a tick; maybe seek further consultation with the community if it felt that it was necessary, and then enable a recommendation to go to the Government prior to the Government making its decision.
If I were the appropriate Minister I would be quite happy to wait for and listen to the recommendations of a committee in relation to planning issues, particularly where there was considerable community concern, as there has been in the case of the Forrest bowling club, as there has been in the case of the proposal for the development at Griffith, as there has been for the Gungahlin development and as there has been for West Belconnen. I think it is a very appropriate way for this Assembly to operate.
We all know that the committee chaired by John Langmore has that as one of its tasks. One of its tasks is to look at changes and variations to the National Capital Plan and to report to the responsible Minister. Action is then taken accordingly. I think it is totally appropriate for that to happen and that is why we believe that those amendments are very important. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the proposal to ensure that there is some form of reasonable appeal process in the period between now and when this legislation comes into force as currently proposed in clause 2(3).
MR MOORE (5.34): Mr Speaker, I have some difficulty with the amendment. The main difficulty I have, I suppose, is this: If this is going to be implemented by no later than 1 March, and that gives a quite reasonable time, why is it that we are rushing with the Bill in the first place? I presume, after a very brief discussion with Mr Wood, that the answer will be: Well, the effect of the Bill is so broad that it will require a great deal of time to get the administration in place. I accept that to a certain extent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .