Page 3293 - Week 10 - Thursday, 19 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
opportunity for other people to have their say and to seek a review of the specifics of that development proposal.
The issue is about whether or not people are prepared to develop according to a very objective set of rules and requirements or to develop in a more subjective environment that involves subjective judgments being made and where those judgments should be subject to some level of review. That is the framework we are essentially putting in place. I think that is a fair way of doing it. You can have a very objective set of rules that are very easy to abide by and that everyone understands and, if abided by, that should be the end of the story, or you can have a more subjective environment that involves some subjective qualitative assessment, and that’s where some third party applications should take place.
Dr Foskey also made some comments about the issues around environmental impact assessment. I am really pleased that in the submissions given to the committee, and to the planning authority itself and the government through its own consultation process, environment groups, conservation groups, have said very clearly that this is a real improvement; that when it comes to environmental impact assessment this is a real step forward. I am very proud of that because the existing mechanisms we had for environmental impact assessment are very much a one-size-fits-all approach; they do not graduate up as issues become more complex and impacts become more significant. That is something that we have sought deliberately to change.
I am very pleased also to say that I have had very constructive discussions with the conservation council, in particular, and its member groups. The application of European Union prescribed minimum standards around the content of environmental impact assessments is also a matter that the government has given very close and favourable consideration to. So this legislation is a real step forward and I think the committee itself acknowledges that.
Another issue I would like to quickly raise in the time I have left to me is use as development. I note that the committee has raised this issue, and this is the primary issue that has been raised by what I guess you could call property interests in the territory and the various bodies that represent them. It is a complex matter. The government is not seeking to undermine rights granted in existing leases and we have absolutely no intention of in any way affecting the property rights of leaseholders who have purchased development rights or use rights within their existing leases.
We are seeking to achieve a streamlining of the leasehold administration and the development assessment process so that they work in a more concurrent and, as far as possible, in a single stream rather than in two streams. That, I think, has raised some issues of concern from the property industry. I am confident we can work those issues through and I can certainly indicate to the Assembly that it is a matter that I am continuing to work closely and speak with a range of people on as we move towards the introduction of this legislation later this year.
This report is a very important step. It comes on top of two very large-scale consultation processes conducted by ACTPLA itself, so this is the third round of extensive consultation that has occurred to date on this program. I would like to thank the team in ACTPLA who have done the work to date to bring this very large body of work to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .