Page 5591 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
thinks that a technical amendment actually contains a significant policy change at present the only way to debate it is through a judicial review. Of course, most people probably would not get standing in the courts to debate this, even if they had the resources to do it.
Possibly a solution for enhancing democracy but retaining the need for expediency in some instances would be to introduce a new level of variation to the territory plan which allows for technical policy changes but is through a disallowable process. I have put this proposal in my list of changes for ACTPLA to consider. I have also inserted (iii):
improving the public notification of the limited consultation, e.g. signage and notifying relevant community councils and groups …
Mr Seselja has rightly identified that technical amendments are only subject to limited consultation rather than full notification. Given that they are normally smaller amendments, this makes sense. But, again, it could be worth while differentiating the process for amendments with policy changes and ones without. ACPLA also often argue that there are no residents in the areas affected, but that is not always the case. Even if it is the case, that in itself is not a reason for a technical variation only.
The Assembly has recently considered a full territory plan amendment for the new suburb of Lawson. Lawson, of course, does not have residents at present and will not for some time. It would be quite disturbing if ACTPLA used the excuse of no residents to do major changes to that plan after the plan has just been approved by the Assembly. I think that there is some validity in asking that signs be erected in suburbs where changes are being proposed—in the case we are discussing today at the entrances to Casey and Crace. I think it is also worth while asking the broader community for feedback on proposals, including any relevant area-based groups or groups which use the area. I also have (iv):
a requirement for more detailed explanatory statements for proposed technical amendments …
As far as I can see, there is no legal requirement for detailed explanatory statements on technical amendments, although ACTPLA can put something in at the front end of an amendment. So this would be a part of the Planning and Development Act, if acted upon. I have also got (v):
making any submissions to technical amendments publicly available on the ACTPLA website …
It is a common part of most consultation processes nowadays that submissions are made publicly available. This is often done by publishing them on the relevant website. I think it is a useful thing to do. It lets other people see what other concerns there are. I would regard this as normal procedure. My last one is (vi):
reporting back to the Assembly by the last day of sitting in December 2010 with a response to these considerations …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video