Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 358 ..
MR KAINE (continuing):
ago is still valid, whether the principles and the philosophy on which the Territory Plan and the law were written 10 or 12 years ago still apply today. Have community expectations changed?
I support this bill in principle, because I think it is a proper step to go back to the notion of separating responsibility for the administration of the planning function from the political level. But that raises very important questions. What is the relevance of the minister's call-in powers in a situation where there is an independent planning authority? Possibly the minister still needs to have such a power, but perhaps he should exercise it only upon a recommendation by the chief planner rather than the minister or even the executive making a unilateral decision. That is a very important issue. Simply imposing a new territory planner on the existing system does not address that and other important questions that I think ought to be on the agenda.
Fine, let us have the independent territory planner. It is important that we go back to that situation. On balance, it was a better system to have an independent authority in this field, but that raises many questions that will have to be addressed. I expect over the next year or two to see significant change to law in the field of land planning and management. That no doubt will result in significant change to the Territory Plan. That is proper after 10 or 12 years. We need to find out what the community's expectations are in this field 10 years on.
This is a first step, one which I support, but only a first step that now necessitates a lot of work to be done over the next two to three years.
Motion (by Mr Smyth ) proposed:
That the debate be adjourned.
MR SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly that this occur? I am asking the Assembly because standing order 136 states:
The Speaker may disallow any motion or amendment which is the same in substance as any question, which, during the calendar year, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the order, resolution or vote of such question or amendment has been rescinded.
We did in fact move a motion, which was lost, to adjourn the debate. However, standing order 136 says that the Speaker "may". I am therefore asking the Assembly whether it is your wish to adjourn this debate.
Mr Corbell: Mr Speaker, I understand that a number of members would appreciate the opportunity to consider this question further before the in-principle vote is put. On that basis the Labor opposition will not object to the adjournment of the debate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Debate adjourned to the next sitting.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .