Page 2445 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 30 July 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
think it ever has been—brought into effect at two separate points in the process, which would allow up to two years of interim effect in total for one variation.
Clause 17 of the bill in front of us would increase the length of the second go at interim effect to 18 months. We have to remember that interim effect is actually quite a big deal to people—to planning nerds, at any rate. I see Mr Gentlemen nodding on that one. It allows the government to temporarily bypass community consultation and potential Assembly disallowance.
When the government uses interim effect, planning rules change overnight, without any warning. This, of course, can have a big impact on local communities. I worry that interim effect could be used in an anti-democratic way by a future government to push through a development that lacks community support and does not meet the normal rules.
It can also have a big impact on developers. There is a significant risk of the government making mistakes when it brings in rule changes without consultation. We recently saw this with draft variation 350, which was designed to correct a loophole in the Territory Plan. That was a good thing but the first version of this, which was given interim effect, was poorly drafted and had serious unintended consequences for several developers.
On the other hand, a mechanism like interim effect can allow the government to quickly correct a loophole that is seriously undermining the planning system. It can also allow the government to quickly implement a change that has already been through extensive community consultation, as was the case for some of the less controversial master plans. So, on balance, a mechanism like interim effect is necessary but it has significant risks. Against that context, I have scrutinised this proposal very carefully, taking the position that the defined period should be as long as necessary to work properly, and no longer.
The government’s argument is that 12 months, in some cases, is not long enough to cover the whole period from a recommended variation being put to the minister to the variation coming into force; that it is not sensible to have an interim effect to cease part way through that process. In most cases, I believe 12 months is more than adequate. Of course, we have to remember that that is all there is now. However, plotting out the time frames does point to cases where, potentially, it is not able to be met. I must admit that this is mostly as a result of Assembly processes.
When the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Renewal decides to inquire into a Territory Plan variation, it has six months to report. As a final step, the Assembly has five sitting days after the tabling day to disallow the variation. Over the Christmas break, that takes up the better part of three months. Then there are several points where the minister is required to notify an instrument, make a referral and so forth. Put together, it is reasonable to allow a total of one month for these steps.
Allowing for all of this, the government has about two months to consider the committee’s report and to make any changes necessary in response. Of course, the committee would always wish the government to make changes if it has made
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video