Page 2006 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
we were to follow their economic policy or their policy on planning, I do not think we would see many of the cranes that we have seen around town in the last few years. There would probably have to be some sort of commonwealth legislation to get departments built in this town. If we were to respond to every objection from every loud interest group any time there is a development, nothing would get built.
This is an important power which should be used with great discretion. I think it should be used carefully, but it should be there. The minister should be able to cop the heat. The community is able to respond and throw out ministers and governments who they feel act unreasonably in this area.
Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8.00 pm.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (8.00): I take this opportunity to respond to what Zed said about the Greens in relation to planning. He will say this many times; nonetheless I put it on the record: the Greens’ amendments and opposition are not because we are anti development by any means. It might be good to be broadcasting this about us in the year before an election. But very clearly we are not.
We do believe, however, that it has become more and more clear that development needs to be appropriate; that development takes place in a natural environment; that development does impact on the natural environment; and that the way development occurs affects the way people behave with each other. Consequently, we are very excited about development and development occurring in a way that makes Canberra a model for the 21st century.
Clause 156 agreed to.
Clause 157 agreed to.
Clause 158.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.03): I move amendment No 45 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 2065].
This amendment inserts a new clause 158 (1A) in the bill, requiring development applications for the removal of the concessional status of a lease to be refused in specified circumstances. Those circumstances are that, if the minister determines that the removal of the concessional status is not in the public interest under the revised clause 253 coming up in amendment No 99, then the relevant development application under this clause must in all cases be refused. There are of course some companion amendments—Nos 72, 99 and 115—to this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 158, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 159 agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .