Page 4046 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
information, and a lack of cooperation between ACTPLA and the LDA regarding the communication of useful information to all registered bidders. But perhaps the most telling criticism was her comment that “many key stakeholders, including industry groups, appear to have an understanding of the Government’s land-use policy that is different to that held by ACTPLA”.
If it is indeed the Government that has fallen out of step, then further planning scraps can be expected. As it is, Corbell can feel some relief out of this outcome. But it is not a complete exoneration.
This unedifying spectacle of legal challenges, tribunal hearings, claim and counter-claim again illustrates the difficulties of administering overlapping, often competing, planning jurisdictions in Canberra. The proper disposal of public land requires the highest standards of governance, and while the auditor says that the $39 million return at Fyshwick was well above initial evaluations, she also suggested that the LDA’s approach to valuing the block represented a risk that the reserve price was undervalued.
A Government fond of telling voters the cupboard is bare should ensure its agencies extract full value from public land sales.
Clearly, there are some considerable concerns there in relation to this particular issue. Indeed, the report itself at page 9 states:
Various inquiries to ACTPLA indicated that there was some level of uncertainty regarding the planning controls applied to the site. Better practice would have required ACTPLA and LDA jointly to clarify this issue before the auction.
As the lack of clarity regarding the interpretation of aspects of the Territory Plan, particularly the permissible uses of industrial areas or land use restrictions, remained after the land sale, ACTPLA should consider the merit of further clarification of the industrial land use policies.
Legal advice examined by Audit offered different interpretations of the relevant land use control in the Territory Plan. In addition, Audit did not find conclusive documents during the development of Variation 175 to the Territory Plan, to indicate a clear policy intention to relax the 3 000 square metre limit per lease for shops other than bulky goods retailing. Accordingly Audit was unable to offer a conclusive interpretation of this aspect of the Territory Plan and thus of the particular permitted general retail use of Block 8 Section 48, Fyshwick (and other Precinct ‘b’ industrial land).
Clearly there are some very significant problems. We are dealing here with a very substantial development. We will be dealing in future with other various substantial developments. The opposition, through its planning spokesman, is quite right to question these. That is the role of opposition and he will continue to do so because our job is to keep the government accountable. It is a very secretive government. Had it been a little bit more open and accountable, we might not necessarily have got to this stage. Maybe we might not have got to this stage, but I doubt it.
There are a number of issues yet to be resolved because on page 10 the report states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .