Page 314 - Week 01 - Thursday, 12 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
by an expert academic body on governance and the principles of good government here in the territory. They are right. They highlight the issue of certainty. They highlight the issue of having regard to the broad public benefit, not just the narrow vested partisan opposition that is inevitable with infrastructure projects of this scale.
The review concludes with a recommendation:
The approach to seek legislative approval through the whole of the Assembly to limit judicial review rights (as in the case of the Light Rail) is—
and I emphasise “is”—
a satisfactory and democratic safeguard to the exercise of such limitations in the ACT’s Westminster system of government and an appropriate way to avoid additional costs being imposed on ACT taxpayers.
That is the underpinning policy rationale for these proposed amendments—nothing more and nothing less. It is worth reflecting on this important report, one that says some things that government will find and does find uncomfortable, but nevertheless an independent expert report commissioned by the Speaker and undertaken by the University of Canberra’s Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis.
The other thing that is missed in this debate—and we heard it in Mr Coe’s speech—is that apparently we are going to remove appeal rights that are going to affect the removal of trees along Northbourne Avenue. I do not know whether Mr Coe has noticed, but right now and for this project any works along the median of Northbourne Avenue, whether it is tree removal, the installation of light rail lines or electrical cables or whatever else it may be, are not subject to any ACT government approval. It is the responsibility of the National Capital Authority. The National Capital Authority will determine what works proceed in the median, including tree removal. They will determine that on the Federal Highway as well. It is a national approach route. It is covered by the national capital plan and it is within the authority of the NCA.
Do the NCA allow third-party review of their decisions on works approvals? No, they do not. We hear the loud, long moans from the shadow minister about how terrible this is, how it is going to remove people’s right to have their say on development along the median in Northbourne Avenue. It is the NCA’s decision; it is not affected by this legislation. What this legislation does is provide for consistency in relation to the other associated works that sit outside of the median on Northbourne Avenue and sit outside of the median on the Federal Highway.
Yes, we do need to build some important pieces of infrastructure—seven power transformers—and we need to realign road intersections at certain places. These will require development approval under the ACT’s planning framework. This bill provides the same mechanisms for decision on those pieces of infrastructure as apply in relation to the NCA’s approval framework. It would be absurd to say that some parts of the works—indeed, the major parts of the works—are subject to no third-party review under NCA approval, but some bits and pieces around the edges have to go through a completely different planning regime.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video