Over the last decade, several State and Territory administrations have worked to adopt the framework laid out in the DAF Leading Practice Model. In doing this, a level of consistency has emerged in some aspects of the planning system, for example the tracks concept for development assessment types. However many basic elements in the individual planning systems retain the historical references and terminology of the individual states and territories.

The reality is that the use of different terminology, albeit only slightly different in many cases, perpetuates the view that there are differences in the planning systems. The reality is that in many instances, they are simply different names for the same thing.

The purpose of the project was not to move to a system where all states and territories use the same terminology, although such an outcome could be of great benefit. The purpose is to cut through the jargon and misunderstanding that so often occurs when comparing state systems and to in many cases, highlight the fact that we are more often able to compare apples with apples than perhaps we may think, if we simply recognise the different names for the same elements of the system.

The National Glossary of Planning Terminology may provide a useful tool for those wanting to compare apples with apples in the Australian planning system.