Page 304 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I also note that there is already a statutory 120-day framework for appeals to be dealt with in ACAT. There might be some virtue in that being a shorter time frame. I would like to say that but in some ways, given a lot more substantive legal matters such as murder trials take a lot longer, I am not sure if I really can say it. However, one thing I can say is that I think that it would be better from ACAT’s point of view if there was more planning expertise. The matters that they deal with at times are quite significant from a planning point of view.
Briefly, I will talk about the arts precinct. I suspect that the arts precinct was included in this area without a lot of thought on the government’s part. When Mr Corbell said in introducing this that he was trying to stop commercial appeals, I imagine that is what he was thinking about. It did not even occur to ACTPLA when they proposed this course of action that a very controversial appeal within the community would be caught into it. But, as we all know, it has been caught into it and it is not at all clear what will happen to it. Even if the amendment proposed by Mrs Dunne is approved, I think that legally it is still a bit unclear as to what will happen. It is a pity that this was not done in December when we still would have been within the normal time period for an ACAT appeal and there would have been no legal uncertainty.
I think that it would be desirable to have all of the Kingston foreshore available for third-party appeals. If we cannot have all of it, though, the Greens will agree to part of it. We are not going to say that is silly or that is stupid. If we cannot have all of our cake, we will have some of our cake. I think it is a bit unfortunate, particularly because my understanding is that quite a lot of the actual development on the arts precinct is probably not going to be arts, in fact. It is probably going to be commercial and residential. So by taking out a small part of it the Assembly does lend itself to the statement that possibly we are favouring one development over another. I commend my motion to the Assembly, although I do appreciate that it will not be supported.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (11.22): The motion before us today concerns the Planning and Development Amendment Regulation 2011 (No 1), which commenced operation on 15 November last year. The regulation applies solely to the Kingston foreshore area. The regulation adds this area to the existing set of areas in which there is no right to apply for third-party ACAT merit review.
The fact that we are having this debate today is in itself indicative of the importance of the Kingston foreshore area for members of this place and the wider community. I do not need to remind the Assembly of the unique historical and contemporary importance of this area for the cultural and commercial life of our city. We all want to see this area flourish in a way commensurate with its significance and its potential.
The government’s position on this matter is a straightforward one. The government supports practical measures to minimise uncertainty in disputes and, in so doing, help ensure that the community-accepted vision for this area is realised without further undue delay.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video