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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1063 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

currently before the Assembly, actually repeals subsection 229(8). It has a power in it to make regulations and that power has never been used. There has never been a need for it. It is superfluous, so we are going to get rid of it. Subsection 276(4) will become redundant and it is also being repealed.

The removal of conditions on appeals, particularly those relating to environmental assessments or inquiries, only serves to complicate the entire development process. It opens up appeals in circumstances where a public process has already resulted in a decision being made on the same subject matter. The environmental assessment process would become less useful as a result of that, and then it could be challenged again. I think that what is being proposed here is somewhat convoluted. I think that it takes us back to a position in time that we have already resolved. I think that it throws a lot of doubt on the planning process, rather than clarifying anything. It may have the effect of enabling those who simply wish to thwart any planning to object because of the removal of those qualifications which would allow those who have a legitimate interest in planning or are legitimately affected by development to appeal or to object. I think we would be throwing a cloud over planning in the ACT.

There is no reason for this change. The number of inquiries that I have on these issues has diminished, particularly over the last year, simply because we have worked very hard in PALM. I congratulate the directors of PALM on the work that they have done in making sure that the staff know how the Act works and making sure that they know how the process should work and can explain it appropriately to all those with an interest in these issues. We have been able to make sure that the planning process works smoothly for all.

The Government cannot support these amendments. There is nothing in them that adds to good planning. I think they would throw a cloud over good planning because they would open up everything for appeal. There are no qualifications on appeals. There is no reason for that. The ACT already has one of the most stringent planning regimes in the country. It is far tougher and far more organised than what happens in the majority of the States. I think that this Bill would cloud it even further. It would lead to uncertainty in the DA process and that would have a negative impact on the sort of good planning and the sorts of good planning outcomes that we want in the ACT. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, the Government will oppose this Bill.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (4.17): I have risen on many occasions over the last 12 years or so in support of this sort of legislation, but I have to say that it is getting harder to do so. The reason it is getting harder is, as many of us are recognising, the significant improvements in PALM. I think it is appropriate to put that on the table. Those improvements are counting in many ways. So, when we make a decision on balance between the efficiency of the planning system on the one hand and the accountability and the rights of people to appeal on the other, it is a bit more interesting for us to decide exactly where the line goes.

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