Page 5908 - Week 14 - Thursday, 8 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Authorisation through the issuing of a permit to use public unleased land does not automatically mean that an event or activity is approved by the territory. There is other legislation and considerations that the territory makes when dealing with events, particularly large events, and I wish to emphasise the point that permits only authorise the use of land.
The permit system will not be a policing system for the use of public unleased land. Many activities will not require permits and it is only those uses or activities that exclude some or all members of the public from the place that will require a permit. Guidance on when a permit is required will be developed to support the permit system. While many people and corporations who use public unleased land under permit arrangements will not be substantially affected by changes included in the bill, there are a number of key reforms which will impact on ongoing permit holders.
The permit system will now allow for the transfer of permits to a new permit holder. This reform has been sought by business which uses unleased public land on an ongoing basis such as for outdoor cafes or display of goods such as motor vehicles. With the passing of this legislation, a permit will be able to be transferred with the sale of a business on application by the permit holder.
The term of the public unleased land permit has been extended to two years from the current 12-month term. This will provide certainty for businesses and reduce the administrative burden in renewing a permit on an annual basis. Permits, as they do now, may have conditions attached to them but the bill provides greater scope for the decision maker to make conditions. This will free up the permit system to allow permits to be granted which in the past may not have been granted because of an inability by the decision maker to place conditions on a case-by-case basis.
It is proposed that the new act provide for increased discretion for a decision maker to refuse to renew a permit. The current legislation made renewal mandatory even when there had been a change in circumstances. This has proved problematic for permit holders and for the enforcement of permits where there have been, for example, safety concerns generated by changed circumstances. The intention is to ensure that permits are renewed as a matter of course where the person remains a suitable person to hold a permit and the activity remains a suitable activity.
The bill also provides, in addition to indemnity, the capacity for the territory to seek a financial assurance from permit holders where this is reasonably necessary. Many activities in public places create wear and tear on infrastructure and can damage property and land. Events held in parks where there are underground watering systems, for example, can damage these systems when large objects are placed or moved around. In the past such damage has often been repaired at a cost to the community. It is appropriate that permit holders provide financial assurances that can be called upon to repair damage without the territory needing to recover costs through the courts.
While financial assurance will not be limited to commercial operators, it is not the intention of the government that the change to the legislation will disadvantage the not-for-profit or charity sector by seeking financial assurances from all permit holders. Each permit application will be considered on its merits and opportunity provided for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video