Page 4799 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Amendments agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2.30 pm
INTERIM PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1991
Debate resumed from 23 October 1991, on motion by Mr Jensen:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (2.30): Mr Speaker, Mr Jensen's Bill, presented on 23 October, raises a number of issues and I will address those. The approach the Government is taking on this matter is that we should be consistent with such provisions as are provided in the planning legislation also before the house at the moment. In respect of clauses 3 and 6 of Mr Jensen's Bill, I should say that the effect of those clauses is that the Planning Authority must consider the recommendations of the Minister for Urban Services and of ACTEW in preparing a draft plan. He has been quite specific that such reports should be available.
My concern is not that Mr Jensen sees the recommendations of these organisations as being relevant and essential to the preparation of the plan; he simply does not recognise the normal consultative role of the Planning Authority. Indeed, his amendment can become a restriction on what happens. It is the standard practice of this authority, and it will continue under the new legislation, to have regard to the views and requirements of various organisations and government bodies. Depending on the planning issue at hand, this consultation would not be limited to Urban Services and ACTEW, but would include any organisation which the authority considered could add balance to the views on a particular proposal.
The proposed amendment could be seen to exclude this process, requiring that only two agencies be consulted, and would require agencies also to amend their comments in line with any agreement reached in order to avoid exposing the internal process of government to political debate. We will not be supporting that measure and we will not be supporting similar proposals in the planning legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .