Page 567 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is the first time in my time here that I have provided dissenting comments. We in this place attend committee meetings with an expectation of listening to the reasoned views of witnesses and taking these into account in committee deliberations. As a matter of fundamental principle, we should not be taking decisions that unfairly penalise community members who are pursuing an activity that was permitted within a valid law. Quite rightly, the community would have an expectation of a reasonable time frame to accommodate those who had commenced a legitimate activity before the rules were changed by the government.
I am not going to stand here and go over the ins and outs of the body of DV 350. Ms Le Couteur has done a fine job of summarising the matter. Suffice to say that, following my time in this inquiry, I formed a view which was consistent with the rest of the committee regarding the need to make these changes. I fully support what has been done in terms of the change to DV 350, except regarding the harshness of interim effect.
Draft variations to the Territory Plan must have a date of effect. In this case DV 350 was notified as being subject to section 65 of the Planning and Development Act. This means the draft variation had an interim effect which applied from 25 May last year. This was well in advance of the minister’s referral to the planning committee, dated 3 September 2018. So the new rules applied from that earlier date, even though the committee had not commenced its review and the proposed variation remained in draft form. If a property owner had a development application 99 per cent ready to go but not lodged before 25 May 2018, it was bad luck; their options were chopped off.
The original draft of the committee report did in fact anticipate this problem, or at least pay some heed to it. It contained a recommendation seeking the government’s provision of a transitional arrangement during the interim effect period—not necessarily for this particular case but perhaps that it should be considered for future draft variations. At present, once the interim effect is invoked, there is no means of accommodating a phase-in period. There was a moment of clarity for this tripartisan committee when it went very close to recommending that the government set up a process whereby they could provide a transitional arrangement for the sake of fairness.
This recommendation for a transition period was far from unreasonable. It would have provided relief for property owners who had reached an advanced stage of preparation to redevelop an affected block and who had incurred costs but had not yet lodged a development application. The reality, based on the evidence given to the committee, is that there were quite a number who were at that point.
A number of key stakeholder groups made representations to the committee, including the MBA and the HIA. They highlighted the absence of a transition period, with the HIA specifically seeking an exemption for blocks purchased before 25 May 2018, and also an ability to lodge a development application up to 1 July this year. Of course, there would have to be limits on the transitional arrangement. Obviously, developers would need to have real proof of where they intended to head.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video