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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3966 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

The process of transition from the current Planning and Land Management to the Planning and Land Authority is achieved largely be removing references in the land act to the minister and references to the authority. Under the old scheme, in reality officers of Planning and Land Management exercised these powers under ministerial delegations of powers.

A statutory authority is to be created to regulate planning, rather than a government department. The minister makes much here and elsewhere about the implications it has for creating an independent planning authority. I submit that this is a shimmer of independence; it is not effective independence.

The bill also removes some of the powers exercisable by the executive, effectively cabinet, and vests them in the Planning Minister. These include submitting variations to the Territory Plan to the Assembly and subsequently either requesting amendments to the proposed variations or ordering withdrawal of the proposed variations; acquiring places of heritage significance; seeking an order of protection of unregistered Aboriginal places; and conducting an inquiry into whether a particular lease should be granted.

The powers relating to the acquisition of places of heritage significance and seeking protection orders for the unregistered Aboriginal places are part of part 3 of the planning act, which is soon to be repealed by the current heritage bill. This draws a stark contrast between the responsibilities of the Planning Minister and the responsibilities of the environment minister. This is the first time since self-government that those two sets of responsibilities have not been exercised by the one person.

The bill contains two substantive measures. The first relates to the call-in powers. The bill restates the existing call-in powers, except that the minister must consider comments from both the Planning and Land Authority and the Planning and Land Council before making a decision. This is a question of taste as to whether it is desirable that there should be what could be called speed humps in call-ins. As with the old powers, these powers can be exercised only where the application raises a major policy issue, the application may have substantial effect on the achievement of development objectives of the Territory Plan or the application would provide substantial public benefit.

In other words, what the minister proposes is highly debatable. That is particularly so if the decisions are to be made on the grounds of substantial public benefit. In these circumstances the opposition queries the desirability of the delay inherent in bodies having to provide extra views to the minister on an issue that may be subject to call-in. Alternatively, if advice from these bodies is important, then it is noted that the legislation does not require the minister to table the advice when advising the Assembly when he has called in a DA.

The other substantive change is that the Planning and Land Authority can reconsider or review its own decisions. It is a matter of some debate exactly what they can do. The consequential provisions bill adds a new subdivision to the land act which allows someone who has had an application approved, presumably in a form modified from the original proposal, or refused to seek an internal review of the decision by someone other than the original decision-maker within four weeks of the original decision.

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