Page 5543 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is highly unlikely that in the first three months of a plan somebody is really going to understand its impact. That is the real point about this. People start to understand the impact of a plan once developments occur, once they have started to have an impact on society. It is, as Mr Stefaniak put it this morning, a situation like some of the motor traffic regulations - it has taken nearly 10 years to get them right.
Similarly with the plan, it will be quite possible that one provision of the plan is inconsistent with another provision, or is inconsistent with the principles that guide the plan. This may come to light only following a particular environmental disaster or a particular building that causes some problem. But, having found that that problem exists, it is appropriate that the provisions in the plan can be challenged, and that they can be challenged where there is a fair arbiter, namely, in the court.
For us to pass this clause would be entirely inappropriate, Mr Speaker. I think it is important that members realise the ramifications of this clause. I do note, Mr Speaker, that Mr Jensen wants to see this clause omitted; so I presume that he will also wish to speak on it.
MR JENSEN (3.32): Yes, but I will not speak for long because most of the points have been made by Mr Moore. We proposed to remove the division. The point really is that in a very complex document like the Territory Plan, or a major variation to the plan, it is quite possible that three months could well elapse before people realise that there is a potential problem from a legal point of view in the provisions of the plan or a variation to the plan. Effectively, what we are talking about is a plan or a plan variation. They basically are the same thing.
We are concerned that this provides almost a statute of limitations, if you like, in that after three months that is it; there can be no more legal challenges raised in relation to the validity of a provision of a plan. The point is well made that three months is not sufficient time for people to assess whether there are some problems with the plan. We could find ourselves in some difficulty and the community would not be able to challenge, if I read this clause correctly.
Mr Wood may be able to throw some light on the issue. It may be appropriate for him to respond to the points raised both by me and by Mr Moore. Then maybe my colleague Mr Collaery could comment further.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (3.34): I can appreciate the concern expressed by Mr Moore and Mr Jensen in this matter, but it seems to me that if you do not have some such provision the plan has no value of any kind. If any provision in the plan can be challenged at any time it removes the certainty that the plan is intended to provide
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .