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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4480 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

That aside, there is an argument, I believe, and the government believes, for the retention of the call-in power. It is there to be exercised, firstly, for development applications of territory-wide significance which run the risk of not happening because of a range of either vexatious or deliberate attempts to stymie it through the appeals process, as opposed to legitimate objections, and, secondly, where there is a proposal which is clearly not in the interests of the people of Canberra but which may be approved. It is important to remember that the call-in power is not just about approving applications; technically, it is about determining applications. The minister can just as easily determine not to approve an application as the minister can to approve the application.

That is the rationale behind Labor's retention of the call-in power. We see that as an essential democratic safeguard, to be used in exceptional circumstances. Indeed, the government has worked, both in government and in opposition, to make the exercise of the power far more transparent.

I, as an opposition member, amended the land act, approximately two years ago now, to provide clear criteria for the exercise of the call-in power, and these are outlined in section 229A of the land act. The land act provides these criteria, and I will just read them out. The criteria for the use of this power are if the application:

(a) raises a major issue of policy; or

(b) seeks approval for a development that may have a substantial effect on the achievement or development of objectives of the Territory plan; or

(c) allows a decision that would give rise to a substantial public benefit;

So the government's record is clear on this. We have already successfully amended the land act from opposition to impose criteria which must be used in determining the exercise of the power.

The government has since outlined, in its approaches in the consequential legislation and in the Planning and Land Act, that it will be increasing the accountability and transparency of the call-in power. Firstly, the minister must now obtain advice from both the authority and the Planning and Land Council prior to making a decision. The council's advice relating to the exercise of the power is to be publicly available. I think this is a very important check on blatant abuse of the power. It means that the minister must seek the advice of the council before determining the application him or herself. That advice must be made publicly available. So, if the minister decides that the Planning and Land Council has got it wrong, that is fine; the minister can do that. At the end of the day, the exercise of the call-in power is an exercise of political power and the minister must be held, and is held, solely accountable for that.

But the advice from the Planning and Land Council will do two things. First of all, it will inform the decision of the minister, and, secondly, it will be made public, therefore allowing the community and the Assembly to judge the decision of the minister against the advice received from the authority and the council.

We, as a government, believe that this is a very important improvement and one which increases the transparency and accountability of the exercise of this important power. I think that we have outlined the amendments that we will be dealing with shortly, but I think that indicates the government's approach to the exercise of this power, how

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