Page 301 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
To ensure that chapter 15 meets its statutory objectives the amendment bill establishes a requirement that government review payments out of any temporary reinsurance fund created under its provisions within 10 years of its establishment. This amendment will ensure that territory money is not being held in perpetuity, while allowing sufficient time for insurers to assess what their potential liabilities are and therefore claims on the fund are.
The amendment bill will ensure that the workers compensation scheme is able to provide timely protection, care and support to territory workers injured as a result of a terrorist incident. I commend this bill to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Dunne) adjourned to the next sitting.
Planning—Kingston foreshore
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (11.09): I move:
That this Assembly:
(1) notes that the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development approved a Planning and Development Regulation which exempts an area on the Kingston Foreshore from third party appeals on approved development applications; and
(2) disallows Subordinate Law SL2011-30, Planning and Development Amendment Regulation 2011 (No 1), including a regulatory impact statement.
I am moving this motion today to disallow the government’s regulation which would stop any third-party appeals being lodged in ACAT for a precinct within the Kingston foreshore. This precinct also includes the Kingston arts precinct, which I believe is subject to an amendment which will be moved shortly.
Just looking at the time line, Mr Corbell approved this amendment on 14 November last year. On 15 November ACTPLA approved the Quayside development, which is within the exempt precinct, and then two weeks later the Fitters Workshop development application was approved. I understand that the legal situation right now for developments in that area is somewhat confusing. I understand that the Quayside development and the Fitters Workshop development have both attempted to go to ACAT. I believe that the ACAT does not know exactly what the answer is legally, which I think is pretty disappointing.
I am disappointed that the Assembly did not debate my disallowance motion last year. I have a business background. I think you would have to say that one thing that business likes to know is what the rules are. You may or may not agree with the rules, but at least you like to know what the rules are. I think that, whatever people think about the rights or wrongs of third-party appeals, it would have been appropriate for us to consider this issue last year and make a determination, instead of leaving people who objected to both of these developments to put appeals to ACAT. I do not know
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video