Page 1658 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 3 June 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This bill also creates a special variation to the territory plan, a new type of variation created in this bill specifically for the purpose of this facility. In a similar framework to that of the project facilitation legislation, this special variation must go out for public consultation for three weeks and then ACTPLA must prepare a report on the comments received through the public consultation. That report will then go to the executive for consideration, along with comments from the NCA and any clarification issues raised in the consultation.
After consideration of this report, the executive may then agree to create a variation in relation to the Symonston site, which changes the zoning on the site to ensure that a hospital is a permissible use of the site as the current zoning of broad acre does not necessarily permit a hospital. This legislation is not much more complex than this when it comes down to it. It can only be used for the Symonston secure mental health facility, only on that site for those purposes and it has a sunset clause of five years.
The sunset clause only relates to the limits on access to ACAT and AD(JR) appeals. The variation to the territory plan would be a permanent change to the zoning. The sunset clause may be extended by another five years if necessary, but I would think that that seems very unlikely. Certainly, I believe that the government is committed to delivering this facility within that time frame long before the sunset clause expires.
This proposal varies from a call in in that it requires the executive, not just the planning minister, to agree to the proposal and this legislation allows for the creation of a special variation to the territory plan. Criteria in the bill require the executive to consider the consultation report, examine the comments, ensure that the variation facilitates the Symonston mental health facility and ensure that there are no substantive policy reasons for the facility not to proceed.
During the period the project facilitation legislation was before the Assembly, a number of organisations and individuals came to me with their considerations. Quite a few of them explained that they would prefer to see specific project facilitation legislation for quite specific projects rather than approving a framework that could potentially be used for a number of projects. I think what we have before us today is an example of that.
This is, indeed, project-specific legislation specific to the Symonston site only. However, I believe that many eyes will be watching to see whether this is a process that works and whether it is potentially one worth repeating in the future. Certainly in those discussions I debated that point with a number of organisations about whether it was better to have a framework that applied consistently or whether it was better to do it on a project-by-project basis. I think that is a debate that will no doubt continue.
Madam Speaker, there are still many changes to go through in terms of the planning process for this facility. A variation will need to go out to the NCA and for public comment. A consultation report will need to be prepared for executive consideration before variation approval. A DA will then need to go out for public consultation before following usual ACTPLA approval processes. I believe that there will be two DAs for this proposal: one for the demolition and one for the construction.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video