Page 3865 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 19 September 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
At this point I turn to the proposed amendments related to these provisions referred to earlier. The first area of amendments relates to the scenario in which the minister refers a draft variation to the relevant committee of the Assembly and the requirement for the committee, under the new section 73(3), to notify the minister as to whether it intends to report on a variation.
As it stands, new section 73(3) requires the committee to notify the minister of its intention within the 15 working days. I understand that this period of 15 working days has been the subject of some discussion with the office of Ms Nicole Lawder MLA and also of Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA. I acknowledge concerns raised as to the practicality of the period and note that the amendments will increase this period from 15 working days to 20 working days. The small extension is in keeping with proposed mechanisms in the bill and as such is only a minor amendment. I thank members for the discussion on that particular issue.
I now turn to the second area of amendments to the bill. This also relates to the bill’s provisions on the Territory Plan variations. The government amendment relates to the time period in which the Assembly committee must report on a draft variation if the report is, in fact, undertaken. The default period for completing the report is six months. If the minister does not receive a report in this time, the minister can proceed to approve the variation and present it to the Assembly.
Under the existing act, there is scope for the minister to request a reporting period of less than six months but not less than three months if the variation is related to light rail and the minister is satisfied that the shorter period will minimise risk of delay to the development of light rail. The option of the shorter reporting period for variations related to light rail has been carried over into the amendment bill in the new context of mandatory variation referrals. Unfortunately, the new provisions on light rail, in their new location, do not sufficiently mirror the existing ones. This is contrary to the government’s intention to make no substantive changes.
Government amendment No 1 amends clause 4 by inserting new sections 73(2A) and 73(2B). The effect of these new sections is to ensure that the existing approach to light rail variations is unchanged but for the mandatory referral of these and other variations. In particular, the amendment restores the express mention of the factors that the minister must be satisfied on before requesting the committee to report in the shortened period.
I note at this point that government amendment No 4 amends a cross-reference in the new section 75(1)(c)(i) inserted by clause 7. This is a consequential amendment only. Government amendment No 1 is minor in nature because it is consistent with the existing framework in the bill, which already includes the possibility of a shortened reporting period in relation to light rail of not less than three months. The amendment does not add a new mechanism or limitation but confirms the criteria on which a shortened reporting period can be requested, consistent with the existing act—criteria which the minister would arguably need to have in mind, of course, in making such a request in any event.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video