Page 1985 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is true that the time frame for consulting on a draft variation to the territory plan and, for example, on a land management plan, involves a similar woefully inadequate 15-day period. But when the draft variation is given to the minister, all the background papers, including written reports, consultation comments, NCA documents, and a report on the public, NCA, conservators, the Environment Protection Authority, ACT Heritage Council and land custodians’ comments must be given with the variation. These written reports are not required to be passed on to the minister in the case of draft management plans.
However, with the draft plan and management process, after the written comments are set out in a written report for the minister, a written explanation of why the draft plan does not incorporate the comments must also be included. This is a very important part of the process. It is not just about collecting the comments and ticking the boxes. It is then about considering that advice and those thoughts and explaining how various issues were decided on. Thus the minister, other Assembly members, committee members and the public can be aware of what was taken into account.
So here we have two similar processes which both incorporate some good, clear thinking and which also both omit a very sensible part of the process applicable to the other type of draft plan. When this was raised in a briefing two weeks ago, it looked like the department might have been willing to try to incorporate those processes to improve them to be consistent and, more importantly, more rigorous. Perhaps this is a sign that the different sections of the legislation were drafted by different people or that it was done in a hurry, or with little consistency check. The suite of planning bills is so large and complex that a comprehensive consistency check is probably stretching the bounds of human capabilities. Unfortunately, the one thing that remains consistent throughout is the 15-day consultation period, combined with the notion that advertising the existence of that consultation period can be achieved through small notices in the daily newspaper. We know who looks there—the people who know to look there, the people whose business is involved in knowing what ACTPLA has on its plate. Perhaps when we see another iteration of this Act these things will be revised and improved.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clauses 63 and 64, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 65.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.17): I move amendment No 15 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 2065].
This amendment substitutes new subclauses 65 (2) and (3) into the bill to include criteria for when the ACT Planning and Land Authority may exercise its discretion not to make part of a draft variation or background paper publicly available. This amendment seeks to address concerns raised by the scrutiny of bills committee and aligns criteria for non-disclosure of certain draft plan variations with similar criteria for non-disclosure of development applications. Amendment No 118 is a companion
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .