Page 2088 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Before I finish I will touch upon Mr Seselja’s comments about regulations and disallowable periods. What actually inspired that, Mr Seselja, was the Kingston foreshore removal of third-party appeals. If the house remembers, this was notified by the minister some time in November. At the earliest time that the Assembly could disallow it, I moved to disallow it. I tried to have this debated last year, in December. Neither Liberal nor Labor wished to debate it.
The result is that ACAT is still hearing whether or not it is in a position to hear a third-party appeal on the Fitters Workshop. Because the regulations are somewhat in limbo between the period from when they have been notified and when they have been disallowed, what is the legal status of a regulation which is disallowed? I wanted to make it clear, rather than have a situation where ACAT has to try and work out from first principles what the situation is. That was the idea behind that, Mr Seselja. I will cease at this point, given that we are going to adjourn the debate and talk more about the substantive issues of the amendments and my bill this afternoon.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (10.50), in reply: I am pleased today to debate this bill. It is the third bill created under the government’s omnibus planning and building legislation amendment bill process. It makes amendments to three acts: the Building Act, the Planning and Development Act and the Unit Titles Act, and it also makes amendments to related regulations.
The amendments are non-controversial and make no more than technical or minor policy adjustments in keeping with the omnibus nature of this bill. The bill also makes minor amendments because of amendments made by other bills.
Before I turn to the main details of this bill, I would like to refer to the Planning and Development (Public Notification) Amendment Bill presented by Ms Le Couteur. The government is not able to support Ms Le Couteur’s bill as presented. However, the government has agreed to put forward amendments to our own bill as a result of discussions with Ms Le Couteur. The government amendments are put forward on the basis that they are minor only and so appropriate for immediate consideration. I will refer to these amendments in more detail shortly.
Turning to the principal elements of the government’s bill that relate to the Planning and Development Act, the amendments made to this act and regulation cover several areas, including technical variations to the territory plan, development applications for the development of new estates and a range of other matters. The Planning and Development Act permits minor, technical variations to be made to the territory plan. As members are aware, technical variation is not required to go through the full and rather lengthy process that applies to standard territory plan variations.
Clause 13 of the bill creates a new type of technical variation to the territory plan that can be made through the relatively short technical variation process. The amendment to section 87 of the Planning and Development Act applies to variations to shift a provision of the territory plan from one part of the text of the plan to another. The amendment makes such a technical variation subject to one important proviso—that is,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video