Page 249 - Week 01 - Thursday, 14 February 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A third option for entry is therefore required. The bill establishes a new process to permit entry in the absence of consent and provides for a new type of court order to permit entry. The amendment bill refers to these new orders as monitoring warrants and rectification work orders. If an inspector seeks entry to check whether a controlled activity is occurring or to check whether a compliance order has been followed, the inspector may enter with the consent of the occupier. This consent may be sought in person or following a written two-day intention-to-enter notice.
If a written notice is issued and consent is not given, or the occupier is absent, the inspector may apply to the court for a monitoring warrant. If granted, the monitoring warrant will permit the inspector to require entry and complete the required inspections. In some cases an inspector may seek entry with an authorised tradesperson for the carrying out of rectification work. This step may be required where ACTPLA has issued a written notice, called a rectification direction, to the occupier or lessee requiring work to be done—for example, to remedy an unlawful development—and the direction is ignored. In this case, as a last resort the authority may engage a tradesperson to complete the required work. Again, the inspector and the authorised tradesperson may seek entry for this purpose, with the consent of the occupier, and, if granted, the order will permit the inspector to require entry to enable the rectification work to be done.
Clearly, monitoring warrants and rectification work orders permit a level of intrusion into private homes in some circumstances. However, this level of intrusion is necessary if inspectors are to be able to take effective compliance action to ensure the integrity of the planning legislation and the territory plan. Because the measures are intrusive, the amendments include a number of checks and balances. Importantly, an inspector will not be able to obtain entry without consent except under a court order. There are safeguards, checks and balances in the legislation to ensure that the procedures do not unreasonably intrude on the right to privacy as articulated in the Human Rights Act.
In conclusion I note that it was not practical to include these matters with the government amendments in the debate on the Planning and Development Bill in August last year. This was because matters were still under development. It is also desirable to proceed with these matters through a separate amendment bill to permit consideration of these matters by the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs.
I now turn to the remaining amendments in the bill. Clause 12 of the bill replaces section 152, which established the requirements for public notification of development applications. Under the existing Planning and Development Act, the procedures for public notification vary according to the type of development application. A development application in the code track does not require public notification, while applications in the merit and impact track require notification in some form. Some merit track applications require letters to neighbouring lessees, and more significant applications require both letters to neighbours and a notice in the newspapers, plus a sign on the property. In other words, a letter to neighbours is the minimum consultation required for merit track matters.
When the Planning and Development Act was debated in August last year, the methodology for public notification was a matter for some discussion. I indicated at
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .