Page 5355 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I indicate that I also wish to add a new subclause (8) to this. I will move that separately. If it is appropriate, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak to that at the same time, rather than take up the time of the Assembly.
Leave granted.
MR JENSEN: I thank members. This clause relates to the deferral or withdrawal of a draft plan variation. The authority makes a decision because of the consultation or because of some concerns or problems that it has found after putting out the draft variation. It then brings it back onto the drawing board. All that it is required to do under this clause, as I read it anyway, is to issue a notice in the Gazette to say that this proposal is brought back on again. It is not even required under this clause to put a notice in the newspaper.
Some of the changes involved might be quite substantial. They may be major changes, required as a result of something that was picked up after the draft variation was actually prepared and circulated. What we are suggesting is that in these cases the authority should be required to publish a notice not only in the Gazette but also in a daily newspaper on a Saturday. I think we all accept the fact that that means the Saturday Canberra Times, where most of the draft variations are published these days; we all know that that is where it usually happens. The notice should indicate that the draft plan variation has been revised pursuant to the legislation and that copies of the plan variation as so revised are available for public inspection during a specified period of not less than 21 days at a specified place.
In other words, what we are saying is that the process commences again. The authority should then make a revised draft plan variation available for public inspection. Members will note that, once again, I have left out the word "purchase", because we are talking about draft plan variations and I would hope that the Government will not expect people to pay for draft variations, particularly in view of their size. We are talking about only a few pages in most cases, even with some of the added information that, hopefully, will eventually be put into this documentation. That is something that the Government should look at.
Because there has been a process whereby the draft variation has been withdrawn and put back on the table again, the amendment that I propose to move later would provide for those communities that were involved in the previous process to actually be advised that the process has restarted. We believe that that is appropriate. In fact, members will note that that amendment, which I have circulated, says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .