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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 184 ..

First of all, I asked ACT Health to withdraw the original development application, and they did so two days ago. That has been done. There is no development application currently before the Planning and Land Authority. Secondly, I have indicated to ACT Health, as the proponent, that they will have to go through the full statutory development application process. This will involve a preapplication process, where they will have to satisfy the requirements of the high quality sustainable design guidelines and where they will have to consult with immediate neighbours before a development application is even lodged. That is a requirement under HQSD.

Following the achievement of a high quality sustainable design endorsement of the proposed design, a formal development application will have to be lodged. This will have to be publicly notified in the newspaper, a sign will have to be placed on the premises indicating what is going on and, consistent with the regulations under the act, immediate neighbours will have to be notified by mail of the details of the development.

Further, all plans lodged will be publicly available at the Planning and Land Authority shopfront. They will also be available online through the Planning and Land Authority website. That public notification period will last 15 working days—three working weeks, effectively. (Extension of time granted.) Then the government will move to engage the Assembly in this process.

Normally, the Planning and Land Authority would determine the application itself and, if any party was unhappy with that decision, it could be reviewed in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and matters of law could go to the Supreme Court. The government is instead proposing this. For the reasons that I have just given you, we need to know whether these beds will go ahead at this site. We need to know that. I do not think we can afford to wait the 12 months it will take—or potentially 18 months if it is a protracted process—to resolve whether or not the Karralika facility can proceed.

Just in the last financial year we had a 16 per cent increase in demand for rehabilitation beds, and we can expect that to continue. I do not accept that it is desirable or in the public interest to not know whether or not rehabilitation beds can proceed when the money has been approved and a site identified. If the site is not suitable, we need to know that promptly so we can find another site. But we cannot afford, as a community, the extensive delay that would potentially occur.

So I am saying to members: I will move a resolution in this place, and I will seek your views, based on the consultation and the advice of the Planning and Land Authority, as to whether or not the facility should proceed in this form or in a modified form. But I can only put that proposition to you—moving a resolution in this place and seeking your view—if I exercise the call-in power.

As members would know, the ACT Planning and Land Authority would otherwise be the decision maker, and they are independent. They are a statutory, independent decision maker and they cannot be directed by this place in determining the application. But you and I understand that there is a political relationship when it is the minister making the decision. You and I understand that, if the Assembly expresses a point of view about whether or not the development application proceeds and I ignore that view, I am taking a significant risk. We all understand what that is.

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