Page 5589 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Leave granted.
Omit paragraphs (2) and (3), substitute:
“(2) expresses concern that the scope of some technical amendments go beyond what the Assembly originally envisaged; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
( a) provide to Members, by close of business on Thursday, 25 November 2010, a more detailed explanatory statement for classifying the amendments in TA 2010-31 as technical amendments, and on how it determines which amendments are technical and which are not; and
(b) consider improving the legislation and processes around technical amendments, including:
(i) retaining technical amendments as notifiable instruments, while ensuring that these are actually technical and are policy neutral;
(ii) introducing a new level of variation to the Territory Plan, which allows for minor policy changes and is disallowable;
(iii) improving the public notification of the limited consultation, e.g. signage and notifying relevant community councils and groups;
(iv) a requirement for more detailed explanatory statements for proposed technical amendments;
(v) making any submissions to technical amendments publicly available on the ACTPLA website; and
(vi) reporting back to the Assembly by the last day of sitting in December 2010 with a response to these considerations.”.
The first amendment seeks to omit paragraph (2) and substitute it with the words “expresses concern that the scope of some technical amendments go beyond what the Assembly originally envisaged”. I propose to delete Mr Seselja’s paragraph, which is similar but not the same as this, because I am fairly certain that the technical amendment system is working as intended by ACTPLA. The confusion is more about what the community thought technical amendments meant and possibly the Assembly.
Mr Seselja was part of the previous Assembly which unanimously voted for the changed Planning and Development Act. Clearly, this is not what Mr Seselja, or Mr Smyth for that matter, thought they were voting for. The confusion is around what the Assembly envisaged, what the community envisaged. That is what my amendment is reflecting. As I have said before, I put in a submission on a technical amendment which basically said the same thing and expressed my concern that technical amendments were being used to put though policy changes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video