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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Wednesday, 30 June 2004) . . Page.. 3074 ..

appeals stage, mediation occurs and these issues are resolved. By using the call-in powers and taking away that right to have consultation, everybody is disadvantaged.

It is important that we have a planning system that provides confidence for the developers and the community and that we have the best outcomes. It should not be the role of government to prevent members of the community from having their concerns examined impartially by officers of the tribunal. I commend this bill to the Assembly.

MRS CROSS (5.05): Mr Speaker, the purpose of Ms Tucker’s bill is to remove the power of the planning minister to call in development applications. The power to call in a development application will be transferred to ACTPLA, the same agency that actually processes the application in the first place.

I will be opposing this bill for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is important that the minister has the power to call in development applications if such a step is for the good of the community. Community interest must be paramount. At times it is necessary for the minister to be able to circumvent minority dissent if it is in the best interests of the community to do so. The call-in powers allow for this. It is particularly important that projects of territorial significance are not delayed or prevented by the deliberate misuse of the appeals process.

Secondly, the call-in powers are a protection against projects that are not in the interests of Canberrans. The planning minister can call in applications and then not approve them if the minister believes the project is not in the interests of the ACT. This is an important and often unrecognised role of the call-in power. The minister certainly needs the power to stop projects that, whilst following application guidelines, are not in the interests of the territory.

Thirdly, I believe it is the right of the government to implement its policies with, of course, the approval of the Assembly. If a project raises an important matter of policy, the government, through the planning minister, should be able to determine what is done so that the project is consistent with government policy.

It is my understanding that this government has used the call-in powers six times. These have been for Coles in Gungahlin, Big W in Gungahlin, the Metropolitan in Civic, the Space Apartments in Turner, Stage 1 of the Kingston foreshore development and the Tanjil Loop in Duffy. That is not a great number of times for the minister to invoke the call-in powers. Nor does it represent a misuse of these powers.

MR SPEAKER: Order! There is too much conversation in the chamber. Mrs Cross has the floor.

Ms Tucker: Everyone else puts up with a bit of chat, Helen. So precious.

MRS CROSS: Ms Tucker, I did not interrupt your speech. I do not appreciate your interruption. I can understand why Ms Tucker is upset. We are not supporting her bill but I would like her to let me finish. To the contrary, I would suggest that Mr Corbell has been remarkably restrained in his use of the call-in powers, showing a due deference to the current planning process.

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