Page 1496 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The fees and charges in the planning space are prohibitive and are holding up investment and positive change in Canberra. Of course, the extension-of-time fees and lease variation charges are at the top of the list of counterintuitive fees. Those fees are holding up good projects and restricting development in appropriate areas. In the last few weeks we have seen the ultimate example of this government’s arrogance when it comes to planning policy in the ACT. We have had an attempt by this government, by this cabinet—with the full endorsement of Mr Rattenbury—to make Mr Corbell the town planner, architect and developer for any site of his choosing.
The government introduced the Planning and Development (Project Facilitation Amendment) Bill in March without consulting stakeholders. The bill was supposed to support investment in the territory, yet the government did not talk to people who would have to work within these new requirements. Instead, it tried to push the bill through the Assembly before it had properly explained its bill and its implications.
The bill was brought in on 20 March with no prior notification to concerned stakeholders. Then in early April they tried to ram it through and then it got pushed over to a committee inquiry where in just 11 business days some people in the community—mostly volunteers—frantically put together submissions. Every single one of the submissions and every single witness said that the bill was no good and that it should be chucked out.
As late as last week, Mr Rattenbury and others were saying how good this bill was. Then on Thursday night, at the 11th hour, we hear that a decision was made within the government that they should pull a bill that should never have been put on the table. As we all know, the community was concerned about the impact of the bill. It was referred to the planning, environment and territory and municipal services committee for inquiry. It was a sham inquiry. The committee had less than a month to receive submissions, conduct hearings, consider the bill and write a report on it. This was not sufficient time for members of the community to properly understand the bill.
Even so, all those who were involved in the inquiry raised concerns about the bill, and nobody—nobody, Madam Deputy Speaker—recommended that the bill should be passed. Despite these widespread concerns, the government was still determined to push it through. The government was determined to give the minister the power, in effect, not only to call in DAs but to call in variation plans as well. It was only at the very last minute, after increasing pressure from the community and, who knows, perhaps Mr Rattenbury, that the government decided last Friday to withdraw the bill.
Of course, the community was advised through Mr Rattenbury’s email that there might be some hope that the call-in powers were going to be pulled. That was not quite true. It was not true at all. And Minister Corbell told the committee that. He said that there was no intention to alter the call-in powers, but simply add to them through what the government was proposing to do with regard to special precincts and major projects. The community, including Mr Rattenbury, felt let down by the government simply because the bill was not up to the standard.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video