Page 3687 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
be dealt with cheaply. If you are talking about dealing cheaply with matters of conflict you simply cannot allow legal representation, because, as soon as you do, cheapness goes out the window. That is why it is, Madam Speaker, that we have before us an appropriate appeals board, and it gives me pleasure to congratulate the Minister on it.
I have prepared a couple of amendments in consultation with Ms Szuty. The Minister was aware of them last week and I believe that he is accepting them. When appointment of the board is completed, Madam Speaker, it will be under scrutiny by this Assembly. Appointments to the board are to be made by instrument. One amendment seeks to make that instrument disallowable. The second amendment which I am foreshadowing is that, when the Executive makes an order under section 256, that order be tabled in the Legislative Assembly within a reasonable period. I think three days is a reasonable period. The order will be made out, so it is just a matter of tabling it. It does not require any further work. Really, it is a matter of ensuring that the Assembly is informed. I think that they are two useful amendments that will help to keep the process open and public.
MR LAMONT (4.27): The Bill that is before us this afternoon, and indeed the amendments, cannot be seen in isolation from the Territory Plan which came into effect on Monday of this week. Nor can it be seen in isolation from the recommendations contained in the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee's report on the draft Territory Plan. Nor can it be seen in isolation from the raft of decisions taken by the Government about the Territory Plan which ultimately was given life by its gazettal and formal proclamation.
One of the concerns that I have is the question of the disallowable instrument. To some extent, my objections to Mr Moore's foreshadowed amendment are overcome by, again, one of the recommendations of the PDI Committee. It suggested that the guidelines which are used by the Planning Authority and which underpin the planning regime in the ACT also should be disallowable instruments in this Assembly. To some extent, it would be extremely hard for me, as chair of that committee, to argue this afternoon that Mr Moore's amendment should not be accepted. While it does cause me some concern that the appointments, as a matter of course, become disallowable instruments, I can see where that may fit into the overall framework of the attitude that the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee was trying to achieve by the recommendations that it made.
This recommendation allows the community to be assured that, should they not be able to represent themselves, for the reasons outlined by Mr Moore, the chair of the board is able to authorise the attendance of legal representation. Equally, I would presume that the chair would be able to authorise representation by a person from the interpreter service. Equally, the chair would be able to authorise the attendance of a carer or another person to assist with the presentation of an individual's view. So what we are discussing this afternoon, Madam Speaker, is not an instrument which seizes upon any anti-lawyer sentiment. What it does seize upon, in my view, is the atmosphere that we have tried to create by this new Territory Plan, and this new Territory Plan tries to instil within the community a sense of ownership.
Debate interrupted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .