Page 4722 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 7
MR MOORE (8.34): I move:
Page 6, lines 17 to 22, paragraph 7(3)(c), omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraph:
"(c) for the purposes of Part VI, specify controlled activities and authorities that are concurring authorities in relation to each controlled activity so specified;"
The effect of that, Mr Speaker, is to remove subparagraph (c)(ii), which simply provides for a restriction of appeals. Removing this will allow appeal right across the system on any planning decision. It is a quite simple move. It is not all that important to many people here. It would be a very sensible thing to remove those two lines. It would be relatively painless and it would be a major contribution to our society.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (8.36): Mr Speaker, Mr Moore must think we are simple. He suggests that this is a rather small matter. I acknowledge that it is a key issue in many areas. Many people would like a much wider range of appeals, something that would absolutely bog down the system and make it quite unworkable. The Government has a policy principle that the Territory Plan will specify the classes of applications relating to land use excluded from third-party appeals. We intend to hold to that, and we will oppose this amendment.
MRS NOLAN (8.37): Mr Speaker, I am going to be very brief. I will oppose Mr Moore's amendment.
MR COLLAERY (8.37): Mr Moore is proposing an open, reviewable planning system. That is what the Labor Government has promised us, and that is what a Labor Government is now resiling from. Clearly, they are not going to support it. Let the record show that the Labor Party needs to understand the significance of what Mr Moore is suggesting. Mr Moore is suggesting that the Bill allow the full range of decision making to be reviewed.
Whilst we do have wide third-party appeals structures in the Bill, Mr Moore is proposing that those matters, so specified, not be limited, and that all decisions referred to in Part VI of the Bill, namely, all those provisions relating to approvals and orders, controlled activities and concurring authorities, be open to review. The fact is that when people apply to have controlled activities, sometimes in their homes, as I well know, a full range of people are circularised by the authorities - not just the immediate neighbours - but people in the vicinity. So, it is broadly cast on that basis.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .