Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1061 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
However, my intention with this motion is not to have debate now on the most desirable configuration of electorates, but merely to initiate an objective process for expanding the overall numbers of members in this Assembly. I think it is time to get started on this process rather than continue to regard any thought of expanding the size of the Assembly as a taboo subject.
Debate (on motion by Mr Moore ) adjourned.
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (4.08): The Government will be opposing Ms Tucker's Bill because it believes that the Bill does not add anything to the process. We worked very hard over the last two years, particularly throughout 1999 after the Ernst and Young review, to make sure that the process that we have is simple, is clear and delivers good planning outcomes for all Canberrans. What is being proposed here does not add to that at all. These amendments relate to two areas of the Act. The first is about minor changes to development application approvals. We need to understand that these development applications have received approval and the applicant is coming back for some minor amendment. It is not about a new process; it is not a new application. What they are applying for really has not been contentious. There are one or two examples of there having been some issue with minor amendments; but, in the main, this part of the Act has been working particularly well.
The amendments seek to impose new notification and approval requirements in relation to a minor amendment to something that has already been approved. That just does not seem sensible, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. Under Ms Tucker's amendments, notice of a proposed minor amendment would have to be given to any objector. The notice to objectors must set out the particulars of the amendment and advise that copies may be inspected for at least 14 days. Copies of the proposed amendment generally would be available for inspection during the 14-day period. The notice must also advise that objectors have 14 days to comment on the proposed amendment and that those comments will be taken into consideration in determining the application. The proposed minor amendment must not cause an increase to the detriment of any person or to the environment and notice of the minor amendment would be required to be given to an objector. That would add little to the existing practice, which requires notification of objectors. Objectors have been notified of minor amendments for some time and their comments are taken into account. But we are talking about minor amendments to something that has already gone through a full process to receive approval.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .