Page 2132 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The amended version of this clause would fix this by allowing the directorate to renotify the development application with further information included to the community. I recommend that members support the amended version because it closes a loophole inadvertently created in the drafting of the original bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16.
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (5.28): We will not be opposing this clause because it does no harm. But the Canberra Liberals’ view is that it is quite meaningless because it replicates the process that is already set out in the act.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.28): This is about the rejection of false and misleading DAs. This clause addresses a significant concern which was raised during the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Renewal’s inquiry into development application processes. I have also had a few approaches from constituents on this issue over the last four years.
People in the community, as well as some people in the industry, are concerned that a small number of dodgy operators submit plans with deliberate inconsistencies that understate either the size of the development or the overshadowing it causes. The intention is to game the system to get an approval when they should not. This clause would simply allow the directorate to reject any development applications that they believe are false or misleading.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.29): This is about call-ins, because the act allows the planning minister, under certain circumstances, to decide a development application rather than having it assessed and decided under the normal processes. This is what is normally referred to as a call-in. A call-in is a substantial departure from a normal assessment and decision by the independent statutory decision-maker.
There is a risk that call-ins can politicise the planning process or create conflicts of interest in decision-making, as has happened in the New South Wales. This clause would provide a basic protection against these sorts of platforms by allowing the Assembly to override a call-in decision. This would allow the Assembly to restrain any future excessive or improper use of the power.
The need for this clause was highlighted very recently by the planning minister’s decision to call in Common Ground in Dickson. I reiterate for the umpteenth time that I and the Greens strongly support public housing. Indeed, the Greens’ first election
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video