Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2021 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 11 February 2021) . . Page.. 437 ..


(ii) a landfill site; and

(iii) a recyclable material collection site; and

(iv) a recycling facility; and

(v) a waste transfer facility; and

(vi) a hazardous waste facility …

For my constituents in the electorate of Kurrajong, the prospect of a waste processing facility in Fyshwick has been the subject of much angst, much anger, many public meetings and an exhaustive number and depth of submissions from many concerned Canberrans.

During the Ninth Assembly, the question of inappropriate developments in Fyshwick became a growing and regular concern. The reality is that in recent years Fyshwick has become increasingly gentrified, with large-format retail, such as Harvey Norman and Bing Lee, as well as specialty shops, childcare centres, boutiques, cafes and bakeries. The prospect of two or even more waste facilities with significant increased traffic, and with the potential for interstate waste to be trucked in for processing, to name a few of the concerns, became, for many locals, a difficult development to support.

The ACT needs development, and we need upgraded and improved waste processing and recycling. I do not think that that is in dispute; and we do not want to stifle innovation being brought into our city. However, in this instance such developments were perhaps the right solution, but in the wrong location.

This bill addresses current applications but also covers any potential prohibited waste facility development applications made before the commencement day. If, before the commencement day, a person has made a prohibited waste facility development application, the bill directs the planning and land authority to refuse it.

One issue that I am significantly concerned about is the fact that the government has been handling at least one of the development applications that this bill applies to for a period of around three years. During that time the company in question has, in good faith, developed project proposals, purchased land, had plans drawn up and undertaken many community consultations, on the understanding that its project would be an acceptable use of the land in question. The time, money and resources that this company has invested in this venture are most likely staggering.

I draw attention to proposed section 137G, “Compensation—safety net”. The section says, inter alia:

(1) This section applies if, apart from this section, the operation of this part would result in the acquisition of property from a person otherwise than on just terms under the Self-Government Act …

(2) The territory must pay reasonable compensation to the person for the acquisition in accordance with this section.

(3) The territory and the person may agree on an amount of compensation or other terms in satisfaction of the Territory’s obligation …


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video