Page 3318 - Week 09 - Thursday, 24 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The bill provides for a proposal involving contaminated land to be taken out of the impact track if the planning and land authority provides an environmental significance opinion that the proposal is not likely to have an adverse environmental impact. If the environmental significance opinion is provided, the development will be assessed in the merit track or may even be exempt development, if the criteria are met. This process is the same as applies in other impact track matters.
This is a red tape reduction measure. An environmental significance opinion is a less onerous and quicker process than preparing an environmental impact statement but it is considered a process that provides for proper and adequate oversight of the environmental impacts of a proposed development on contaminated land. The authority will be required to consult a number of entities in preparing the environmental significance opinion, including the environment protection authority.
It is important to note that development proposals on contaminated sites could still require assessment in the impact track if they trigger any of the other items in schedule 4 of the act. For example, a development proposal might require an environmental impact statement if it was likely to result in significant impacts on protected matters, such as a matter of national environmental significance. Likewise, if a particular recycling facility was proposed, it might also be captured by one of the waste management triggers in schedule 4 and require an environmental impact statement.
It is the government’s view that the bill provides a more appropriate process for the assessment of development proposals on contaminated sites. It is also an example of the government keeping a careful eye on how the planning processes are working out in the real world and making adjustments to the legislation as and when required to reduce red tape.
I would now like to talk about the amendments proposed by the bill relating to the referral by the minister of draft Territory Plan variations to the relevant committee of the Legislative Assembly. At present, after public consultation but before a draft variation to the Territory Plan becomes a Territory Plan variation, section 73 of the Planning and Development Act provides discretion to the minister to refer a draft variation to the appropriate Legislative Assembly committee. If the minister refers a draft variation to the committee, the minister may not take action in relation to the draft variation until the committee reports on the draft variation or six months has passed since the draft variation was referred to the committee.
In accordance with the parliamentary agreement for the Ninth Legislative Assembly, the bill replaces the minister’s discretion to refer a draft variation to the committee with a requirement that the minister must refer the draft variation to the appropriate committee within five working days after the day the public availability notice for the variation is notified. If the committee does not notify the minister that it will be reporting on the draft variation within 15 working days, the minister may go ahead with his powers under section 76 of the Planning and Development Act and approve the draft variation or refer it back to the planning and land authority. If the committee notifies the minister that it will be reporting on the draft variation within the required
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video