Page 1548 - Week 05 - Thursday, 15 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As members will see, there are significant safeguards in the bill for the operation of this new legislation. Publication requirements of the commencement of the special variation remain the same as for draft plan variations. The bill provides for a time limit in bringing court proceedings in relation to a special variation. A person may not start a proceeding in court more than 60 days after a variation is made. New section 85L also provides for a 60-day time limit for the commencement of court proceedings on decisions in relation to a development proposal for the development of the mental health facility.
These provisions are aimed at reducing any delay that can be caused by court proceedings. The right remains for someone to start a court proceeding. The bill just puts what is considered a reasonable time limit on the time in which that proceeding must be commenced. The government says this limit is reasonable, given the importance to the territory of building the mental healthcare facility as soon as possible.
Importantly, the bill also provides two additional measures to provide certainty for the delivery of this important community facility. Firstly, if the executive approves the special variation and it takes effect, any subsequent development proposal approvals within the Symonston site will not be subject to third-party ACAT merit review. A third party will not be able to challenge a development approval decision on a merits review basis.
Secondly, the bill makes clear that there will be no avenue to challenge a development approval for projects within the Symonston site under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. The only avenue for challenge on such matters will be to the Supreme Court under common law, and then only on questions of law or procedure. The removal of the application of the AD(JR) Act will apply for a limited period of five years unless extended by regulation. The restriction will not apply to approval decisions made after this period. This is done to ensure, as far as appropriate, the proposals in the area are not delayed through litigation and the approval decisions are final and not able to be varied. It is the government’s view that these limitations on merits and judicial review are appropriate.
The bill provides many opportunities for the community to comment on the proposed mental health facility at the Symonston site. In addition to the consultation opportunities I have just described for the special variation, any development application for the facility will be subject to public notification following the usual requirements under the Planning and Development Act. People may make representations about the development application during public notification, and these representations must be taken into account when a decision is made on the development application.
I am pleased to be presenting this bill today. It fulfils commitments made by the government and honours an agreement reached in the Assembly last year to fast-track the development of this facility in a responsible way and within the existing planning processes for what is a much-needed, new, secure mental health facility for the ACT. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video