Page 329 - Week 01 - Thursday, 12 February 2015

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for Planning, Minister for Roads and Parking, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations, Minister for Children and Young People and Minister for Ageing) (5.52): The government does not support the opposition’s amendment. Given the limited nature of the declaration, it would seem inappropriate to elevate this function to one that requires Legislative Assembly scrutiny by making it a disallowable instrument as proposed. Making this instrument a disallowable instrument would create a level of uncertainty for the project. For example, a development application could be granted on the basis of such a declaration and then subsequently the declaration could be disallowed by the Assembly. This would add to the potential for uncertainty, contrary to the intent of the whole of the provision. Even the mere theoretical possibility of disallowance would make it difficult for relevant agencies and businesses to plan ahead.

The light rail declaration is a limited measure with the following limited features: the declaration would be definitive evidence of the development proposals that are related to light rail; the declaration would be an optional measure to be used on those rare occasions, if any, where there is some doubt or perceived doubt as to whether a development proposal is related to the light rail or not. In such a situation it would be possible for the Planning and Land Authority to declare that the proposal is related to light rail. The declaration will then amount to evidence in itself of this assertion, should the matter ever be pursued in court. The point of this declaration facility is to permit the authority to take action, if necessary, to clarify this point and so limit the potential for counterproductive litigation in the courts or wherever a development proposal is in fact related to light rail.

Question put:

That amendment No 5 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 7

Noes 8

Mr Coe

Ms Lawder

Mr Barr

Ms Fitzharris

Mrs Dunne

Mr Smyth

Ms Berry

Mr Gentleman

Mr Hanson

Mr Wall

Dr Bourke

Ms Porter

Mrs Jones

Mr Corbell

Mr Rattenbury

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13.

MR COE (Ginninderra) (5.56): The Canberra Liberals oppose clause 13, which dramatically reduces the documentation requirements for development applications associated with light rail. The government should be doing the absolute opposite. If they are going to be limiting consultation, limiting appeal rights and limiting advice, they should be boosting documentation. Instead they are doing the opposite. They are actually decreasing the documentation they require. Any other development

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video