Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4477..


Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Amendments 1.1 to 1.4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Amendment 1.5.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.47): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 4 at page 4509].

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 1.5, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 1.6.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.47): Mr Speaker, I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 4 at page 4509].

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 1.6, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments 1.7 to 1.89, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Amendment 1.90.

MS DUNDAS (8.49): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 5 at page 4511].

This amendment removes the so called "call-in"powers of the Planning Minister that are contained in the land act, and is more than just an opposing clause; it is an omitting of the section to remove this also from the original act.

The ACT Democrats went to the last election with a clear commitment opposing the continued operation of call-in powers in our planning system. Planning call-in powers undermine our system of planning and reduce the certainty of the rights and responsibilities that residents and developers expect to have. Planning call-in powers subvert the role of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which has been installed as an independent arbiter of the relative merits of a case.

We have created an appeal system to ensure that the outcomes of our planning system are implemented fairly and justly. The role of the AAT-and especially the new division of the tribunal proposed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill 2002-demonstrates that specialist knowledge is required to judge these issues on a case-by-case basis. This check and balance on planning approvals in Canberra is subverted by the use of planning call-in powers, and it demonstrates that legislators do not show the officers of the AAT the same respect that they expect other members of our community to have.


Next page . . . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search