Page 2394 - Week 08 - Thursday, 6 June 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
necessary or why a minister should be responsible for it. It is of concern to me that these amendments do not include a proposal to omit the requirement for the disability accommodation register under the Disability Services Act.
Amendment 8, with amendments 9 and 10, removes the restriction of visitable places to those wholly or partly funded by the territory. This link has been strongly advocated by operational agencies because it provides the clarity necessary to ensure the effective operation of the scheme. Mr Rattenbury’s proposed amendments are the result of a fundamental disagreement about the basis of the official visitor model.
The Greens see official visitors as roaming inspectors, rather than observers, reporters, eyes and ears. Mr Rattenbury’s assertion that an official visitor may not visit other places is not correct. Any place where an entitled person lives or where they receive a relevant service can be visited at an entitled person’s request. This model is the scheme’s best chance of success.
I have already dealt with amendments 9 and 10 by my commentary on amendment 8. The government will not be supporting these amendments.
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendments negatived.
Remainder of bill, as a whole, agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Planning and Development (Territory Plan Variations) Amendment Bill 2013
Debate resumed from 9 May 2013, on motion by Mr Corbell:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (12.23): The opposition will be supporting the Planning and Development (Territory Plan Variations) Amendment Bill 2013. The bill amends the Planning and Development Act 2007 and the Planning and Development Regulation 2008 to streamline the process of updating and maintaining the territory plan.
This bill increases the minimum community consultation period for both ordinary and technical amendments to the territory plan. The minimum consultation period for ordinary amendments has been increased from 15 days to 30 days in line with current practice within the directorate. This will allow the community more time to investigate and comment on variations. I understand that it is already current practice for the consultation period to be at least 30 days, so it is good that the legislation will now ensure that members of the public have a reasonable time to consider the variations—albeit there is no real change in practice. The consultation may be further extended by the authority if it is considered necessary.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video