Page 4036 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, there was a lack of clarity in the related planning controls in the Territory Plan applied to the Lease and Development Conditions for the site. The clarity of the sale documents could have been improved with the inclusion of an appropriate interpretation of the Territory Plan in its application to the site.
So there we have it. During the estimates committee process Mr Corbell, under scrutiny, maintained that it was clear to all bidders, yet the Auditor-General found that it was not. Even after months of scrutiny the Auditor-General was unable to say what the proper land use was for this part of Fyshwick. The Auditor-General was unable to come to a conclusion. Part of the reason for that is:
An explanatory statement for Variation 175 to the Territory Plan tabled by the Minister for Planning in October 2002, which sought to explain the changes to the planning controls, was not in itself clear regarding exactly what had been amended.
The report goes on to state:
Audit formed the view that the current interpretation by ACTPLA of the Territory Plan … as applied to Section 48 Fyshwick reflected the Authority’s understanding of the Government’s policy to increase diversity and flexibility in retailing. Unfortunately, this issue is not clear to key stakeholders, including the key industry body, who strongly believed that the focus of the Variation was to encourage industrial use and lower rent bulky goods retailing, but not general retail use.
In the absence of conclusive policy information supporting the final Variation 175, and given the differing legal advice from various sources about the possible interpretation of specific controls under the Territory Plan applied to ‘shops’, Audit is not in a position to determine the correct interpretation.
After all this the planning minister oversees a regime in which no-one is aware of what they can do.
Mr Smyth: Except Simon.
MR SESELJA: Except Simon. During the estimates committee process, when we were seeking to scrutinise this issue, the chief planning officer refused to give us his interpretation of the territory plan.
Mr Corbell: Tell us about preferential treatment.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR SESELJA: How is industry expected to be able to make commercial decisions when six months later the chief planning officer cannot tell us what is the situation? After months of investigation the Auditor-General still cannot tell us what is the situation.
Mr Corbell: You have misled the Assembly again.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .