Page 2125 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Territory Plan variation brought into force just before the referral to an Assembly standing committee. Its practical effect is to bypass the Assembly’s scrutiny of the variation. This is the point at which the interim effect was recently applied to the Common Ground Dickson variation, effectively making it pointless to have a committee inquiry. It also has recently been used on the controversial Kippax planning changes. In my opinion, and the Greens’ opinion, the government should not be able to bypass the elected Assembly in this way on controversial planning changes without the Assembly being able to override it. Of course, I urge members to vote for this clause.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Manager of Government Business, Minister for Advanced Technology and Space Industries, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Minister for Planning and Land Management, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Urban Renewal) (5.04): The ACT government and our Assembly has been served well by having an independent planning and land authority with appropriate and heavy codified oversight by the Legislative Assembly. Introducing the uncertainty of making decisions disallowable instruments creates uncertainty for the community and for industry.
During the time of disallowance there will be heavy investment by the community and industry towards whether they should engage in the current process or whether they should direct their investment towards members of the Legislative Assembly to disallow the instrument. So, whilst I acknowledge Ms Le Couteur’s desire to have the Assembly members involved in the planning process, this is well performed by the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Renewal. This approach would just add to the confusion of the roles and responsibilities within the planning system.
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (5.05): I will just say briefly that the Canberra Liberals do not believe that clause 10 would improve the planning system, for the reasons that have been mentioned by Mr Gentleman, so we will not be supporting it.
Clause 10 negatived.
Clause 11 negatived.
Clause 12.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.05): I am hoping that we might do a bit better on this one because this one actually addresses a shortcoming that those of us who have been on the planning committee have become well aware of. I should reference the fact that the clerk who is currently in the chamber is also the planning committee secretary.
Members interjecting—
MS LE COUTEUR: I know she cannot vote, but she has been a party to many long discussions about this issue. I am very pleased that she is the clerk in the chamber for this debate, as her musings on the subject are relevant to it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video