Page 319 - Week 01 - Thursday, 12 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
alternative to the use of call-in powers through using the normal DA channels and processes but applying appropriate criteria for light rail-related infrastructure, thus applying a more transparent and democratic process than the use of ministerial call-in powers.
As I have outlined, this bill establishes clear criteria that will allow our planning authority to make declarations as to whether a proposal meets the definition of “light rail related”, and this definition is very clear. I am comfortable with these definitions and criteria and feel that once we have set those, we should keep decisions away from politicians and leave them in the hands of the planning authority. Many people continue to have concerns about the politicisation of our planning system. However, our current system is quite unusual around Australia in that it gives the vast majority of planning decisions to our independent statutory authority, ACTPLA. Thus, decisions on development applications are kept as far away as possible from our ACT politicians. This is a good system and one I continue to strongly support. We certainly would not want to have the planning problems we have seen with some of our state counterparts.
Let me turn to the issue of appeal rights, because this bill also introduces a range of limitations such as those on appeal rights. The Greens are strong advocates for community appeal rights. However, we also agree there are times when society’s overall goals should be able to come at the expense of individual needs so long as they do not infringe on basic human rights. As removal of certain appeal rights is a key part of the intent of this legislation, it is important to reflect on the limits of this legislation. It does not relate to the broad range of other developments, the type which could take any number of forms and which are typically the subject of appeals. These might be private developments, residential or mixed use, for example, high-rise buildings, low-rise buildings and buildings taking a variety of forms. As we know, it is sometimes a complex question as to whether developments such as these are appropriate, and they are sometimes subject to appeals and review. The same planning controls and appeal rights remain in place for these types of developments.
I do not want to repeat myself but I reiterate that this bill only relates to a clear category of light rail infrastructure—the nuts and bolts of the project itself. In the course of light rail in particular, if opponents of the project decide to hold up the project, this will put up the cost of the project and therefore cost taxpayers more. We do not want the cost of a major government project increased due to delays that are based on opposition to the project and not to a specific component of it.
That is a very important point to reflect on. It is clear that members of the opposition and some members of the public are ideologically opposed to this project. They will seek to use appeal mechanisms to curtail this project not because of the merit of the placement of a transformer or the necessity of putting certain works in place that are specifically related to light rail; they will use it as a means to kibosh the project, or at least endeavour to. That is really what we are talking about here. This is not about precluding the community. There remain a range of consultation processes and various channels so the community can remain deeply involved in this project and provide feedback. This is about dealing with people who will seek to litigate this project for reasons beyond the merits of the individual piece of infrastructure being discussed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video