Page 5780 - Week 18 - Tuesday, 10 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that there is still time for the community to comment on these sorts of specific issues. It is something that needs to be done. I urge members of the Assembly to take particular care in playing their role in protecting the environment.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (3.44): Mr Speaker, I thank the two previous speakers for their comments and I will join in briefly on the argument that we had last week. I note the concern about the defined land concept and I can only say again, as I did last week, that it is a system that will work. It is not a matter that has to be taken on trust, because there are very strong requirements written into the legislation to ensure that the interests of the community are well and truly protected. The principles in the plan concerning defined land are just one control that is held by the Government over what proceeds.
Mr Jensen seems to think that the ACT Planning Authority and its somewhat new independence is not a factor in this at all, or that the Minister has no responsibility, or, further, that there is no continuing debate in this Assembly and in the community as matters proceed. The defined land process, it is true, has a greater measure of flexibility than existed in the past at the very end stage. That is a provision that is generally supported. My recollection is that when it was first raised in this Assembly it was universally supported. Some people have modified their view since then.
There are sound reasons why it is desirable for a little flexibility - I use the word "little" because that is what it is - to be allowed as development proceeds. It is the case that repeatedly, as subdivisional work is undertaken, when the dozers are on the site, better provisions can be seen. They have to be agreed if there is a change; they have to be agreed by the ACT Chief Planner. I think that we have very effective safeguards.
Mr Jensen wants to omit that power. He wants to believe that the original proposal, the draft variation when it goes out, does not have the policies and the principles that are clearly established and which cannot be changed, which must be met as development proceeds.
Mr Speaker, Mr Moore made some comment about the legless lizard. I might have something more to say about that in a day or two because some preliminary assessment of the incidence of that important little creature has just about reached its completion and I might be able to comment further; but I can say at this stage that I think our anxieties in this respect can be allayed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .