Page 2087 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of us who look at these issues would wish that regulations did not start immediately and that we in the Assembly would have the opportunity to look at them all, but that is not how they work. It is not how regulations work in other pieces of legislation.
This appears to be about the fact that the Greens obviously do not like the way that Minister Corbell has used his regulation powers in the past as planning minister. There may well be a legitimate criticism in that, but I would simply say to the Greens that they are the party that consistently tick off on what the government does. They are the party that keep this Labor Party in government. Instead of using that influence to get the outcomes that they believe are good for the community, they are now seeking to legislate so that every regulation does not take effect until the disallowance period has passed.
We do not believe that is a reasonable response. In fact we believe that is a completely unreasonable response to the Greens’ frustrations at their inability, in some cases, to have influence over their coalition partners. They could have made sure that these things are handled better. They could have insisted that the Assembly be consulted before controversial regulations are signed. But the response that is proposed by Ms Le Couteur is that we should now have a blanket change to how regulations are made under the Planning and Development Act. We do not share that view. We believe that that would be cumbersome. We believe that it would limit the ability of governments to respond rapidly in certain circumstances. We will not be supporting Ms Le Couteur’s bill. We look forward to having the opportunity to further consider the government’s amendments. I will speak to those when we get to the detail stage.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (10.46): The Greens will be supporting the government’s PABLAB No 3 today. It is largely a technical bill. It does such things as allowing appendices to the building code to be also part of the Building Act, not just the code itself, ensuring that it is clear that an estate development plan is actually part of a development application for a new estate, ensuring that the territory plan is a notifiable instrument and able to be submitted as evidence in court—I guess we all assumed that was the case, but it is good to know the lawyers have got things to occupy themselves with—and ensuring that consultation comments on a proposal are available after the consultation ends.
I will not speak at great length at this stage about the other bill which is being cognately debated—that is, my bill—because I had my chance when I tabled the bill. The discussion will come back again, of course. The amendments which Mr Corbell gave us so late yesterday are largely, I believe, inspired as a response to my bill, and that is why we will be having a cognate debate.
The Greens will be supporting the amendments. I will also be supporting the adjournment. We only received the amendments late last night and I only saw the explanatory statement when I came down this morning. It will be very nice to have a little bit more time to read the amendments and be confident that we know exactly what they say. In principle we support them. We are very happy with the positive and useful discussion we had with ACTPLA about how best to implement the ideas in our bill and in a way which the government is happier with.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video