Page 2004 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
such a large amount of discretionary power, do you really believe that a future Labor or non-Labor government could necessarily be trusted with such powers?
Clearly, there is an argument that call-in powers have a place in a planning system. The Greens have not supported them, but I can foresee that, if other mechanisms fail, it may be a necessary last resort. There need to be mechanisms that kick in before the call-in powers are exercised, which ensure that the best decisions are made with the best information available. This includes the expression of community perspectives. In the context of this debate, I will simply say that, if call-in powers are to be included, they demand accountability and there should be checks and balances and scrutiny built into the system. But these checks and balances are absent from this legislation.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (6.21): The government will be supporting clause 156. In response to the issues that Dr Foskey has raised, it is important to put on the record that the Labor Party has set out the principles to guide whether or not the call-in power should be exercised. We have worked, both in government and in opposition, to ensure that the call-in powers are used only against an assessable set of clear criteria.
We believe that there is a strong argument for the retention of the call-in power. It is there to be exercised for development applications of territory-wide significance that either run the risk of not happening because of deliberate attempts to stymie them through the appeals process, as Dr Foskey has indicated, as opposed to legitimate objections or, alternatively, if there is a proposal that is clearly not in the interests of the people of Canberra but which may be approved.
It is important to remember that the call-in powers are not just about approving applications; technically it is about determining applications. The planning minister or his or her delegate can just as easily determine not to approve an application as they can to approve one. The government considers that the retention of call-in powers are important. They are an important democratic safeguard to be used in exceptional circumstances. As I have indicated, the Labor Party has worked both in government and opposition to make the exercise of call-in powers far more transparent.
Indeed, my predecessor Mr Corbell amended the land act to provide for clear criteria for the exercise of call-in powers. These are outlined in section 299A of the land act. The land act provides for the following criteria: the development application raises a major issue of policy, it seeks approval for a development that may have a substantial effect on the achievement or development of the objectives of the territory plan or it allows a decision that could give rise to a substantial public benefit.
The government has maintained this approach in consequential legislation and has increased the accountability and transparency of the call-in power. The legislation provides that the minister must obtain advice from ACTPLA prior to making a decision. Its notice, telling ACTPLA of the minister’s decision, is indeed a notifiable instrument. That legislation has been in place and is carried forward in the new legislation. It indicates the government’s approach to the exercise of this power. It shows how seriously we treat it and the sorts of requirements that we believe need to be in place to make sure that any future minister for planning, be they of Labor or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .