Page 2133 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
commitment for this election was the $450 million commitment on public and community housing, including an expansion of Common Ground in Gungahlin. But a call-in is not the right way to resolve controversy with the community.
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (5.31): Clause 17 is one that has given us some consternation because there have been occasions throughout the history of this Assembly where call-in decisions have been questioned by our side of the chamber, certainly going back to a time when I was not here. We in the ACT have one of the most complex planning systems in the nation, although there is a review in place, a long and exhaustive review, the results of which will not be known until after the election. I think we all pretty much agree that although the system may not be completely broken it really requires a major tune-up. It really does require a major tune-up. That it is one of the reasons why Ms Le Couteur has put forward this bill, but we found it difficult to get on board because we know that that review process is ongoing.
The directorate is, for all intents and purposes, an independent directorate, albeit the vehicle through which government rolls out its planning policy and planning vision. We do not support the politicisation of this by allowing the call-in to be a disallowable instrument. The current call-in powers are very limited. They are used very infrequently. Although, I am sure there will be occasions where both sides of the chamber will argue about call-ins in the future, I believe that the power should remain. As a consequence, we will not be supporting clause 17.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Manager of Government Business, Minister for Advanced Technology and Space Industries, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Minister for Planning and Land Management, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Urban Renewal) (5.33): I will speak to clauses 17 and 18. Ministerial powers and the Planning and Development Act are already appropriately limited. These powers are subject to statutory criteria which limit the exercise of these powers, and the minister is often required to report to the Assembly on the exercise of these powers.
Under the ACT’s planning legislation, the responsible minister already has a limited role in the approval of applications and processes. The minister is treated as any other decision-maker in being bound to comply with the Territory Plan in deciding a development application. Ministerial call-in powers are already appropriately limited and can only be made when the defined statutory criteria, such as appropriate community consultation, are met.
The bill’s proposal to increase Assembly oversight of the minister’s consideration of using the call-in process would add an unnecessary restriction of already limited ministerial power. The current provisions strike an appropriate balance and do not require further Assembly oversight. These powers are rarely used and there is no justification for the amendments put forward in this bill. In fact, over the six years since my appointment as planning minister, in 2014, I have used ministerial call-in powers only seven times.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video