Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3372 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The question really is: what is the best outcome here? I think what Mr Kaine seeks to achieve in the motion that he has put forward is a better outcome for everyone who is involved.

As Ms Carnell pointed out, if you have a conference-cum-motel facility there it will generate far more traffic than residential activity. The comings and goings, the conferences, the visitors that will come and use such facilities, and the taxis that will deliver people there all have the potential to generate far more activity.

So what Mr Kaine seeks to do is get the government to bring back the proposed draft variation 94. Whilst the government is supportive of the intent of proposed variation 94, I am advised that it would not actually be possible under the land act to simply recommit that variation. If the Assembly today was to vote in favour of the motion, I would direct the planning authority to review the Territory Plan as it relates to section 56, Block 1, Red Hill to provide for the proposals included in the draft variation in Territory Plan variation No 4.

Unfortunately, when proposed variation 94 was disallowed, that variation, in effect, ceases to exist-it is no longer, and the advice I have is that it cannot be recommitted. What we can do, of course, is put forward the same variation by recommencing the process, but it would come forward as a different variation number and it must then follow the process that is outlined in the act.

What this Assembly can do today is tell the government whether it should follow that process or whether we follow that process for it to fail.

If the Assembly votes in favour of Mr Kaine's motion, the land act does provide for PALM to prepare variations to the Territory Plan. We all know that. But the act does not prevent the authority from considering a new variation that is the same or similar to one which has already been prepared. However, that can be done only in accordance with the process set out in the land act, so it recommences the process. As all of us in this place know, that is a minimum of six months, and on some of the more contentious issues it is somewhat longer.

It could be done somewhat quickly, in that I am sure that the views for and the views against would be very much what we have already heard. With that in mind, it may be somewhat shorter, but PALM, as the authority, is required to carry out the full notification and consultation processes outlined in the act. That means the new draft variation would be need to be prepared, it would need to be released for public consultation, and then it would need to be referred to the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services before it could be tabled in this place.

So I guess if the view of the Assembly today was that this process should be recommenced-and the government would do it only if that was the view of the Assembly today-the golf club would have to consider those time frames. PALM, as the planning authority, would need to consider what was passed today in responding to any executive direction, and then it would decide whether or not to prepare the new draft variation for release.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .