Page 3346 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 21 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
not unreasonable to allow amendments to be made so that the finished building is more practical and useable and a better result all round.
Under the provisions in the bill, the minister may amend DAs or delegate the decision to ACTPLA. This means that DAs approved through ministerial call-in are treated in the same way as all other DAs and do not result in impractical or poor outcomes to the built form. It is illogical that an approved development cannot be altered if the proponent finds problem with the original application. The amendment in this bill is a sensible change. However, this is not an opposition endorsement of the government’s use of call-in powers. That is, of course, a debate for another time.
The second policy change relates to the notification requirements for an environmental significance opinion. Under the provisions in the bill the applicant will be notified of the decision by ACTPLA rather than the relevant agency. This ensures consistency and certainty for proponents and is a logical change to the planning process.
The third policy change is an extension to the time for ACTPLA to report on the number of single-dwelling houses granted by direct sale during the quarter. Under the current legislation, the deadline is just five working days. However, this has been extended to 10 working days, which is a more reasonable and achievable time frame.
The final policy change in this bill is an amendment to the Building Act and the Building (General) Regulation to strengthen the documentation requirements for DA-exempt developments. Under the current legislation, a certifier may determine that a development does not require a DA without providing any justification for that opinion. This means that it is near impossible to audit decisions because there is no supporting documentation.
Members will be aware of the Auditor-General’s report into single-dwelling development assessments, which was prepared partly in response to a situation where a certifier found that a DA was not required but after further investigation it was discovered that the decision was incorrect. Requiring certifiers to keep more detailed records to justify their decision about a DA exemption may create an additional burden, particularly for smaller certifiers. However, larger certifiers already keep such records and we hope that those certifiers who do not already keep detailed records will be able to handle the additional reporting without too much inconvenience.
Transparency around development approvals, and particularly exemptions, is of course very important. The ability for genuine audits to be carried out should outweigh the time costs of the additional reporting. However, the opposition will be watching the implementation of this change carefully to make sure it is, in fact, having the intended consequences and is not too much of a burden on the industry. The last thing we want to see is an unnecessary increase in red tape for no actual improvement in the quality and timeliness of construction. The government has not yet decided the exact form the documentation requirements will take. However, we hope that the requirements will be thorough without being too onerous. The remaining provisions in the bill make minor amendments to other provisions in the planning and building space and are non-controversial.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video