Page 5748 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 6 December 2011

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

This issue has been raised with me by community organisations and by other members. I point out to Mr Seselja that it has even been raised by one of his colleagues, Mr Coe, who has highlighted his concerns about who is responsible for what type of consultation on projects such as the Jamison space development near the Jamison shopping centre.

This is an issue that is across party boundaries and, despite Mr Seselja’s commentary, I think it is one that all members recognise needs some improvement. That is what this PABLAB is all about doing, and I thank those members who have indicated their support of the bill.

Question put:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail stage

Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.

MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (4.57): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 5758].

My amendment is very short. It requires that notification of development applications for lease variations actually include some information about what the lease variations are in the notices, on signs and in letters.

The notification of information that is available about DAs in the case of lease variations that in fact go out publicly does not explain what the proposal is in any shape or form, except to say it is a lease variation. It is pretty hopeless. All of us must have walked past the notices and seen where it says “lease variation”. You wonder what on earth they are talking about, or it is in the Canberra Times and it just says “lease variation”. Not everybody is going to ask what that is. It simply says “lease variation”.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video