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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1845 ..

The current alignment was introduced into the territory plan through variation number 138 in 2001 under the previous government. As members would be aware, this government has always been committed to building a road, but had a preference for an alignment to the west of the Australian Institute of Sport. We invested considerable time, energy and money to demonstrate that the western alignment was the most appropriate and suitable one for this important piece of public infrastructure.

However, given the stance taken by the Australian Sports Commission and the National Capital Authority on this issue, we now know that the western alignment is not an option. Nonetheless, that does not remove from the government its commitment to building this road or the obligation it believes it has to ensure that this piece of infrastructure is developed to service the growing town centre of Gungahlin.

These amending regulations under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 clarify the law as it was understood to apply before the recent Supreme Court decision of Justice Crispin on 31 March 2004. These changes provide certainty by clearly identifying the responsibilities of the territory and the National Capital Authority for works in designated areas and clarify the intent of the minister’s decision-making powers.

The amendments to the regulations clear the way for work on the road to proceed once the work is approved, without the possibility of delays associated with reviews by third parties and objectors. I have to clarify that the government is not removing rights that previously existed; the government is instead clarifying the operation of a law prior to the Crispin judgment.

Members know—and members should know—that all governments in this place have worked on the basis that the development of major arterial roads on unleased land is not subject to public notification and third party review. This was never challenged for any other road project until this one. The government is not removing rights but simply clarifying the existing operation, as it has always been understood by successive governments and assemblies in the territory.

The government adopts and acknowledges the comments of the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs contained within the scrutiny report just tabled by Mr Stefaniak, particularly given the subject matter of this subordinate law, that is to say, town planning.

In its comments, the committee directed our attention to the High Court decision in HA Bachrach Pty Ltd v State of Queensland. In that decision, the court held that, in dealing with land and planning matters, the Queensland state legislature was not acting beyond power or interfering in any relevant sense with the exercise of judicial power. We now bring a consistent approach in relation to these regulations.

Given the nature of this project and its significance to the territory, it is appropriate for this Assembly to have a major role in the decision-making process. I therefore urge members to join with the government so as to allow these regulations to have full effect to permit the Gungahlin Drive extension project to proceed as soon as possible.

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