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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1415 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Maybe there are good answers to these questions. I do not know. I think it would be better to have this referred to the Administration and Procedure Committee for a more thorough process than this piecemeal approach that is occurring today in the Assembly. I just want it on the record that I am not comfortable with this process.

MR CORBELL (11.17): The Labor Party will be supporting this motion today. I take on board the concerns Ms Tucker has raised in relation to this motion and I want to stress, from the Labor Party's perspective, that we certainly would not want to view this as a precedent towards allowing the widespread use of legal advisers or counsel representing witnesses before committees of the Assembly.

There are very good reasons why Assembly committees should have the power to hear directly from proponents of development applications. In fact this motion still provides for that to occur because, if approved by the Assembly, it effectively empowers the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services to decide where it is and where it is not appropriate for witnesses to be represented by counsel or advisers.

It is interesting, Mr Speaker, that we are at this point because for the period in which the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services and its predecessors have been charged with statutory obligations under the land act to inquire into draft variations to the Territory Plan, it has had people who are effectively counsel or advisers appearing before it in relation to variations to the Territory Plan. In fact it has been a very rare occurrence, not only in the history of this committee but of previous committees, from my knowledge, and its predecessor committees, for the proponent, the actual lease holder if you like, to be represented in relation to draft variations to the Territory Plan. Almost invariably, as is the practice in the industry, the proponent, the leaseholder, engages a planning consultant, or an architect, or some other person with relevant professional expertise, to address concerns and raise concerns in public hearings conducted by the committee.

What we are effectively doing by this motion is ensuring that the conduct of the Planning and Urban Services Committee's hearings into such draft variations is in accordance with the standing orders in case there is any doubt as to the conduct of those hearings. I do not believe that there is, but I think this is an important precautionary approach that the committee has taken following advice from the Clerk and other members of the Assembly Secretariat. I think it is important to stress that this is in no way a precedent, but it does reflect the rather unique circumstances that the Planning and Urban Services Committee faces in relation to its statutory obligations under the land act.

MR HARGREAVES (11.20): I understand that the motive for introducing this is to protect the standing committee while undertaking its statutory obligations, because it would be dreadful if these statutory obligations were found to be suspect, but other committees who take on inquiries, or have inquiries referred to them, could be very well in the same boat. I refer in this instance to the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety. I remind Mr Hird of the time we looked into the siting of the prison issue when we received submissions from people who were developers, or we may have received submissions from people who were developers or people representing interested parties.

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