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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 2093 ..

The other issue of concern for me and for the government is that Mrs Dunne’s bill, whilst suggesting that it alludes to public projects, projects undertaken by the territory, could just as easily be applied to any number of projects instigated by the private sector. There would be nothing to stop the Chief Minister determining under this legislation that a particular private development should be expedited.

Is that appropriate? I think that there is a clear distinction between projects which are expedited in the name of the public good, for the benefit of the territory overall, and projects which are expedited because they are private development proposals. That is another weakness in Mrs Dunne’s legislation. There are other contradictory elements of Mrs Dunne’s bill, but those, I think, are the key issues that members need to bear in mind.

It is a grave and serious step to propose that people’s rights to seek review of decisions of either the Assembly or the executive should in some way be restricted. I do not think that it is a black-and-white issue for any of us. We all routinely accept changes to legislation which ensure that people have the capacity to review a decision through the courts or through a tribunal. But the balance that has to be weighed by all members here tonight is: what is the greater public good? Is the greater public good to retain those rights of review, or to ensure that this significant project which will service the needs of 90,000 of our fellow residents is allowed to proceed in an expeditious way?

On balance, the view that the government has taken is that this project should be allowed to proceed in an expeditious way, because that is where the greater good is achieved. But it is not a simple black-and-white exercise and it should not be characterised as an agreement that, no matter what, rights should be overridden in these sorts of circumstances. It is an on-balance judgment as to whether rights to review should be restricted or curtailed in some way.

But, make no bones about it, this legislation, either the government’s or Mrs Dunne’s, does that. The difference is that the government feels strongly that its provisions are more comprehensive. Its provisions allow the project to proceed expeditiously and they are done in the context of the Gungahlin Drive extension. They do not take the opportunity that the Gungahlin Drive extension debate opens in this place to say, “Let’s get these provisions in for all sorts of other circumstances that might occur in the future.” We do not think that that is an appropriate course of action; it is a wider ranging debate.

I am disappointed that the agreement we appeared to have reached at lunchtime today has not eventuated. We will have the debate and see what the outcome is. But the government’s position is quite clear: it does not think the Projects of Territorial Significance Bill is the most appropriate course of action. The government prefers its legislation. It is project specific and it is done in the context of the wide-ranging debate and analysis that preceded the decision to build the Gungahlin Drive extension. For that reason, the government believes that its legislation, not the projects of territorial significance legislation, should be supported by the Assembly tonight.

I would urge members to consider very carefully their vote tonight and to appreciate that we should be focusing on project-specific legislation that facilitates this project. Whether these circumstances should be extended to other projects is not a debate for tonight. That

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