Page 1348 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 10 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
At the end of the day, as a member of the Planning Committee I had a difficult decision to make regarding whether or not I should support the draft variation proposed. On balance, I believed that this proposal was worthy of support. However, I urge the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning in future to err on the side of public notification and consultation in any instance of potential uncertainty. The Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 is clear in its intentions regarding public notification. I quote subsection 19(6) in particular:
Where, on application by the Authority, the Executive is satisfied that a draft Plan variation -
(a) has the sole purpose of correcting a formal error in the Plan; or
(b) would, if approved, not affect the rights of any person in a manner prejudicial to that person;
it may, by instrument, relieve the Authority of the necessity for complying with subsections (1) and (2) in relation to the draft variation.
Subsections (1) and (2) are about public consultation. Subsection 19(7) states:
Where, pursuant to an instrument under subsection (6), the Authority does not comply with subsections (1) and (2) in relation to a draft Plan variation it shall obtain such information about the public attitudes to the draft variation as is reasonable in the circumstances.
That is obviously the path the Planning Authority recommended in this instance. However, we should all be quite sure about the interpretation of these provisions of the Act to uphold the integrity of the planning processes in the ACT. It is my belief, and always has been, that we ignore public notification and consultation processes at our peril. I will be taking a closer interest in such processes in the future and, if I am in any doubt as to the wisdom of dispensing with the formal public notification and consultation processes, I will be recommending to the Planning Committee that we handle future draft variations of this type in a very different way.
MR DE DOMENICO (3.21): I have to concur with Ms Szuty. We hope that the Government and this Assembly always uphold the integrity of the planning process. In this instance, as in other instances, we have upheld the integrity of the planning process. Like Ms Szuty, I would like Mr Wood to err, but I would like him to err on the side of commonsense, and I think this committee once again has adopted the notion of commonsense way above any other notion.
Mr Berry quite adequately described the fact that adjacent lessees were consulted, the Canberra Chamber of Commerce and Industry was consulted, the Conservator of Wildlife was consulted, and the National Capital Planning Authority was consulted. We did not consult any of the residents because there ain't none at Fyshwick. There are not too many residents around the place. Ms Szuty also asked why we did not consult the other duty free shops. I can tell Ms Szuty what the answer would be, if you were to ask them, "Do you want another competitor?". They would say no.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .