Page 4726 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Do not disempower them. Give them somewhere to take their complaints. Let them act quickly; indeed, the schedules provide a proposal for a set of times. Give certainty by the developer knowing that he has to wait only 28 days, or something to that effect, to get a decision on his proposal, but allow appeals. It is a much better way to deal with it. The situation is often raised by developers and was raised by a good friend, Bob Winnel, back in those early days.
Mrs Grassby: What? A good friend?
MR MOORE: I have got my tongue out of my cheek. Mr Winnel and I have been sparring for many years, but never on a personal level - well, not often anyway. Let me point out, Mr Speaker, that in those days what he was talking about was certainty. But, in fact, you will not achieve what you are trying to achieve. Give the developers their certainty; give them their certainty by giving them a particular time by which the appeal has to be completed. That is the appropriate method.
By disempowering people, all you will do is get a reaction such as we have had at Calwell. Except, beware; unlike what happened at Calwell, which was an isolated incident, because of the way this Territory Plan is framed, there will not be an isolated incident; it will grow all over this city, particularly in the areas closest to the town centres, the areas where the most active residents associations already exist. So, be aware of what you are doing. I urge members now to reconsider their position and to vote for this amendment.
MR JENSEN (8.52): Mr Speaker, I want to follow up a little bit on some of the points that Mr Moore has made. It is very important that members have a very careful look at those sections of the Territory Plan, the Written Statement, that relate to the third-party review of decisions.
I accept the fact that there are going to be some situations where it is probably appropriate, if certain criteria are followed, that there be no appeal. Let us have a look at some of the sections of this Territory Plan. Take, for example, the predominant land use zone policies related to major roads. On page 339 of the document we see that, if this goes through, it provides for no appeal against new roads, road widenings, intersection improvements, major public utilities, floodways and above ground electricity supply lines and substations which comply with an implementation plan which has been approved in writing by the authority.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .