Page 730 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 8 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of people they elect to this place, and it will continue to be important that MLAs reflect on the use of this power and seek to use it minimally and judiciously over time.
The bill also introduces a range of limitations such as appeal rights. This is really the whole point of this legislation. The Greens are strong advocates for community appeal rights. However, we also agree that there are times when society’s overall goals should be able to come at the expense of individual needs, so long as they do not infringe on basic human rights. As removal of appeal rights is a key part of the intent of this legislation, it will be important to ensure that this legislation is used as little as possible and only for projects which are genuinely of substantial public benefit or of major significance to the territory.
There are concerns about whether this bill will allow for large scale territory plan variations that go around the current layered process of consultation. However, again, this will depend on each individual proposal which will come before our Assembly.
Regarding the Symonston mental health facility, the bill also introduces specific clauses that put into effect the first stages of declaring the Symonston mental health facility as a special precinct. This is an issue we debated in this place last August, which resulted in a unanimous agreed motion, agreeing to fast-track the project and agreeing to consider project-specific legislation to expedite the process.
I expect that shortly after this legislation is passed the government will prepare a draft special precinct area variation which will be put out to public consultation for 30 working days or six weeks and will also be referred to the NCA, the Heritage Council and the Conservator of Flora and Fauna.
Where this process will differ from future projects using this legislation will be that the final proposed variation after public consultation and agency referral will be a notifiable instrument rather than a disallowable instrument, as we will have already had the debate in the Assembly as to the merits of the project. Thus the public consultation will not be about whether the facility should go ahead but, rather, will be about examining the proposal in detail and looking at whether it will need to be amended to accommodate any specific needs raised by the community.
People may wonder why this proposal warrants such legislation. However, members and people may not realise that the Ngunnawal bush healing farm proposal, a government proposal, has been held up by appeals for over a year. This is something the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elected Body is urging the government to get on with, knowing it is essential for assisting members of that community who have health and alcohol and other drug issues, and yet we have seen it held up for such an extended period of time.
While there were legitimate concerns around issues such as access and emergency services, these have since been responded to. So it appears that the majority of objections remaining are more about personal objections about this type of facility being in the area. For that proposal, it is frustrating for the government and for the people who would use this facility. But it is not the end of the world. However, there
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video