Page 729 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 8 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and is strategically important,” and then move it through this process rather than the alternative approach, which is setting up the facade of consultation and then just calling the project in at the end.
The other option that government has if it wants to fast-track projects is to introduce project-specific legislation for individual projects. If government were to go down this path, then each project could have quite different planning laws applied to it with no certainty of public consultation. I believe the process before us today is preferable as it requires that each project meet the criteria of substantial public benefit, be of major economic, social, cultural or environmental significance to the territory and, in the case of proposed zoning changes, ensure that it contributes to implementing the planning strategy and the territory plan.
This is an issue I worked on closely with my cabinet colleagues to try to ensure that it was robust enough to survive different amendments of the Assembly and of the executive. It then sets out a clear framework for consultation and referrals. With a call in, MLAs have no say in a decision. With project-specific legislation, we have no certainty about the process at all, as it would be up for debate each time.
I believe that this framework before us today is a more honest, transparent and democratic option, and its merits will really hinge on each individual special project or precinct declaration. There are concerns about the politicisation of our planning system. Our current system is quite unusual in Australia in that it gives the vast majority of planning decisions to our independent statutory body, ACTPLA.
Thus, decisions on development applications are kept as far away as possible from our ACT politicians. This is a good system and one that I continue to strongly support. We certainly would not want to have the planning problems we have seen with some of our state counterparts. I think that is an interesting one. Mr Coe has sought to liken this to making it more like Wollongong, which I think is, frankly, a laughable suggestion.
I ask members to consider what is more like Wollongong: one minister having the power to make the decision or the entire Assembly? I know which one I consider to be more democratic and under which system it is less likely for individual members to be offered unsuitable inducements to make a particular decision. If just one minister is subject to all that lobbying pressure, I think they are far more likely to be prone to it rather than 17 or 25 members of the Assembly having to be got across the line.
There will certainly be times when it will be advantageous for the government to use this new power to implement specific projects. It is intended that this legislation is only to be used in these very specific situations in which there is impetus to develop within a short time frame or if there is a threat of ongoing appeals.
We need to be careful to use this power wisely and judiciously, and I hope my fellow MLAs are in agreement on this important point. It is true that this legislation puts a lot of power into the hands of the members of the Assembly, but, indeed, that power is already there. Being an elected representative is all about enacting the will of the people. Thus it will continue to be important that people think hard about the agendas
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video