Page 1848 - Week 06 - Thursday, 14 May 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that other than to say that I think this has moved us forward and improved the level of community consultation when it comes to the ACT’s planning process—something the Greens have chipped away at over the years. We have had quite a series of bills—Ms Le Couteur was particularly active on this in the last term—over the years that have incrementally improved the ACT’s planning laws. This is another example of that, and I am pleased to have secured this progress today.
Amendments agreed to.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.07): I seek leave of the Assembly to propose an amendment which has not been circulated in accordance with standing order 178A.
Leave granted.
MR RATTENBURY: I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 1858].
Firstly, thank you, members, for leave to circulate this late amendment. I acknowledge that it did come late in the discussion, but, as we worked through the details of the proposals put forward by Mr Gentleman, this did seem a small but valuable amendment. It requires that when the minister decides to call in a development application they are required to report to the Assembly, and there are a number of things set out in the legislation which the minister is required to do at that point. This small insertion requires that the minister also present a summary of community consultation under section 138AE and “section 158B(2)(b) (if any); and” the latter. That latter one particularly relates to where the minister has directed that further consultation be undertaken.
For my mind, this is part of the improvement of the transparency of the process. It will give the rest of the Assembly an indication of what consultation has taken place. If ultimately the Greens’ preferred position is that call-ins become disallowable this would be a point at which the Assembly would have the information to help it decide whether it wanted to make a disallowance of that nature. So this is a brief and uncomplicated amendment but one which, as I said, seeks to increase the transparency in the process and ensure that the Assembly and the community are better informed if a call-in power is used.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (5.09): The opposition will be supporting Mr Rattenbury’s amendment. I hope it is noted by Mr Rattenbury that we gave him leave despite, of course, this issue from 27 November 2012 being raised by Mr Rattenbury himself. Mr Rattenbury, in terms of the 24-hour rule for bringing an amendment, said:
The consequence of this new standing order will be that if members do not have their amendments ready in time, the debate simply will not proceed; the debate can be adjourned. If members suddenly at the last minute discover an issue, they can come in here and seek the support of the chamber to adjourn the debate. That is a perfectly appropriate way to proceed. It may mean some things take a little longer to get done, but we will not have any last-minute amendments coming into the chamber. I think that will produce better lawmaking in the territory, which is always something I am sure the community will appreciate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video