Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3965 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

appropriate for the Minister, perhaps at the direction of the Assembly or perhaps because of the policies of the current Government, to have that option in order to facilitate good planning. It has been my practice since I became the Minister responsible for planning to always inform the public when I use the call - in powers and the reasons why. With that in mind, Mr Speaker, the Government does not have any objection to Mr Corbell's Bill because it is something that we have been doing for a long time.

It is important when Ministers exercise their power that they explain it to the people so that people understand how the process works. On every occasion that I have used the call-in powers, Mr Speaker, I have put out a press release at the time and made the reasons for the use well known. In just about all the cases where I have used the call-in powers, Mr Speaker, I think it would sit very comfortably with what Mr Corbell is proposing in his Bill.

Mr Speaker, the Government will not be supporting Ms Tucker's Bill. We do not believe that the powers should be removed. We believe they do serve a useful purpose. The extensions that Ms Tucker calls for to other parts of the Land Act are unnecessary. We believe that they would clog the system with third party appeals that really are not necessary for good planning in this city. I think to extend it to single dwellings is an intrusion on people's personal homes. It will achieve nothing except slow up the system, clog the system with vexatious claims, and make it almost impossible to do anything on your own property.

It is important, I believe, that people have certainty, particularly when planning their family home. They should be able to know what they can do so that they can get on with their lives. We believe that what Ms Tucker is planning here is not acceptable and we call on all members of the Assembly to ensure that it does not go ahead.

What do we have in the ACT? We have a reasonable planning regime, Mr Speaker. Public notification, where warranted, is carried out as the various parts of the Planning Act are implemented, either through a PA, a DA or a BA. Where it is necessary, where there is an impact, there is appropriate notification and an appropriate process is followed. We do not want to turn that process into a nightmare for all involved that will slow down reasonable planning, that will slow down the process and make it open to vexatious claims. With that in mind, we will not be supporting Ms Tucker's amendments.

A consequence of Mr Corbell's amendments is that anything the Minister approves may be open to appeal or dispute, so we will be moving a small amendment that will allow appeals to the Supreme Court on points of law and set a period of 28 days in which an appeal may be lodged. The Government does not have a dilemma with what Mr Corbell has said. Why? Because we have been doing it. We do have a dilemma with what Ms Tucker proposes. Why? Because it does not add anything to the planning process. It will not achieve any better outcome for the people of Canberra. In fact, what it will do is disrupt good planning in this city.

People may well use the planning system and lodge vexatious claims to achieve their own ends. Since I have been the planning Minister, I have tried to make sure that people understand that they are not to use the planning system for their own personal ends. The

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .