Page 2913 - Week 09 - Thursday, 18 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I would like to clarify a few things. Questions have been asked of me in preparing this bill. This bill is not intended to make it easier for ministers to use their call-in powers. It is instead intended to help the community and proponents understand each other’s positions to help facilitate better developments, ones that better meet the needs of the community.
It is important to note that the criteria required to initiate the call-in power are still in place, including that the proposal raises a major policy issue, it meets the strategic directions and objectives of the territory plan, and the proposal approval or refusal would provide substantial public benefit.
The Greens are keen that the government continues to keep the use of call-ins to a minimum. However, when they do happen, we want to ensure that the community has had a chance to fully explore what the proposal actually is and that the proponent has had a full opportunity to understand community concerns and adjust the proposal accordingly before lodging their plans with ACTPLA.
Now, one can think of many examples where this could have been beneficial. There are certainly examples where it has been beneficial. If we reflect on an issue that has had some considerable discussion here in the chamber, the proposed solar farm at Uriarra, there is little doubt that if the proponent had undertaken discussions with the Uriarra community prior to locking down his plans we would have seen far less stress for the community and the potential for much better outcomes.
We have a situation at Uriarra where one of the arguments of the proponent in not wanting to change his view is that he has spent a great deal of time, resources and money on things like geotechnical surveys and other required studies under various environmental approval processes. He is reluctant to spend those funds and that time again. That points to the benefit of this kind of early engagement with communities that are affected.
One of the great frustrations from the Uriarra community in that incident was that, had there been an earlier discussion, other options could have been canvassed. The scenario we now find ourselves in may well have been avoided. The emphasis behind this proposal is that I believe—and the Greens have held the view—that these kinds of pre-discussions, when there is still flexibility in the proponent’s proposal before resources have been extensively expended on design and other works, will mean there is greater room for change and therefore greater room for incorporation of concerns that may be raised.
Pre-DA consultation requirements were introduced into the Planning and Development Act in 2011, following calls by my former Greens colleague Caroline Le Couteur. In the last Assembly, the ACT Greens worked closely with the ALP government to improve planning issues, and this was one area in particular where I think substantial improvements were made.
Requiring proponents of large developments, particularly in suburban areas, to undertake consultation with the local community in advance of lodging their
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video