Page 568 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Such evidence might include an owner being able to prove they were committed to a development proposal, commencement or completion of works to facilitate redevelopment, payments made for site plans and drawings, or obtaining loans or credit to proceed with a development. The directorate recognised that it was possible to establish a transitional arrangement, but the directorate rejected this as it could have resulted in developments that did not meet community expectations and would not comply with the multi-unit housing code. They advised that a hard decision was needed, rather than a reasonable and fair concession.
Aren’t we seeing this time and again from this government? Decisions are made with no real regard for those who are impacted by them financially or emotionally. When those consequences become known, the government just looks the other way and says, “Talk to the hand.” Labor and the Greens effectively say to these people, “We know that this decision has impacted you heavily. We understand that you’ve lost bucketloads of money. We know that we have the ability to change that, but we don’t really care. We don’t really care.”
Closing a planning loophole had to be achieved at any cost, including costs incurred by property owners arising from any reasonable expenses they incurred in compliance with the previous planning rules. But the minister chose to ignore the damage imposed on these people because community expectations were paramount. I had a belief during the hearings that the evidence in this space was so overwhelming that perhaps the other committee members would join me in this position, but that was not the case. It is a pity that the minister is quite selective in his application of this virtue. Indeed, we see time and again that he ignores community interests or simply pretends to listen and then ploughs on regardless.
During the hearings I compared the interim effect provisions of this draft variation to a scenario where the government changed the speed limit on the GDE and lowered it from 90km to 80km an hour. They announced it at nine one morning and very promptly fined everyone who was driving at the previous speed limit. The drivers on the GDE had no idea that the speed limit had changed, but they had to pay the consequences of the interim effect of the speed limit change and of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It is unfortunate that my committee colleagues fell for the line taken by the minister and his directorate, even though the number of cases eligible for a grace period is quite small. A fair transition period would still enable a standardised definition to be applied for the vast majority of affected blocks, but this was rebutted. The committee noted the need for fairness and equity for proponents and residents alike. Unfortunately, the fairness factor goes only one way—by totalling ignoring the impact on those who incurred costs in good faith. After some discussion, what was known as recommendation 3, around interim effect, was purged from the committee report. This allowed the guillotine to fall on those owners who had commenced a development process and incurred expenses in doing so, and who did so in good faith.
Given these considerations, and in all fairness, I could not support all of the committee’s conclusions. I believed it was my reasonable obligation to submit a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video