Page 1495 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, notwithstanding my appreciation of a motion on such an important issue, I cannot support the motion as it is written by Dr Foskey. It seems quite clear to me, from the extent of the rigorous requirements of this motion, that it is essentially designed to kill the development by means of death by paperwork. The motion calls for requirements that go far beyond what is required by ACT planning law and seems to me to set a precedent for arbitrary demands to be made against any development application.
It is especially unfortunate that this motion has not been presented to the Assembly until ActewAGL has gone to some considerable effort to prepare a development application in accordance with the requirements of planning laws. If Dr Foskey requires additional analysis on this project, then I think this motion probably should have been put while the proposal for the development of the application was in the stage of initial planning, while ActewAGL were conducting their noise studies and other analysis. A significant amount of public money has now been spent on planning this proposal and, since it is now to the stage of a development application, it is entirely reasonable for the application to proceed according to the legal processes existing under ACT law, with all of the safeguards, assessments and objections that apply.
The motion calls for the development to be put on hold pending environmental and noise analysis consistent with the new planning regime. The motion also calls for an independent report on the health impact of the development, a cost-benefit analysis of renewable energy alternatives and consideration of social implications of the industrial corridor.
But it is not clear from the words of the motion what Dr Foskey means when she calls for consistency with the new planning regime. Presumably the motion means either that merely the normal planning processes should run their course or supplanting that process by consideration of rules that did not apply at the time of the development application. It means that the normal planning process should run its course, and there seems to be very little need for a motion in the Assembly. So I must presume that it means that it is the latter.
Whilst I certainly appreciate the desire to ensure a comprehensive analysis of the various concerns—and there are many—that have been raised about the development, it seems to me that the existing planning laws are the appropriate mechanism for this. I agree with the minister in the context of those remarks that he made in this regard. It seems to me to be rather a dangerous precedent to apply a set of rules and procedures that did not apply at the time of lodgement of the development application.
Since ActewAGL has taken the time to ensure that the application is lodged by a particular time and has spent a considerable amount of funds on this process, it seems to me to be only fair and reasonable that the application should proceed according to the normal rules and schedules that apply under ACT planning law. The motion would instead create a situation in which arbitrary demands can be made against any development application to an extent which can never be satisfied.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .