Page 308 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
change and development; as such, there is relatively less call for third-party ACAT merit review.
The Kingston foreshore regulation brings the regulatory framework for this area into line with existing regulations for similar areas. The regulation recognises that Kingston foreshore is of the same order of significance as the city centre and our town centres and brings consistency to review processes in this regard.
The amendment that has been circulated by Mrs Dunne is a reasonable compromise, a compromise the government is prepared to accept and support. It keeps in place the prohibition on ACAT review for the commercial and residential development areas of the Kingston foreshore and focuses the area for commercial review on areas surrounding the cultural precinct. That, we think, is an appropriate balance.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.35): The Canberra Liberals will not be supporting the disallowance motion as it is currently presented; but, as Mr Corbell has noted, Mrs Dunne has circulated an amendment which would excise the arts precinct from this regulation. The rest of the regulation will stand, but we will be moving to excise the arts precinct from it.
We need to go back to where we started a couple of months ago on this. This disallowance was first sought to be brought forward by the Greens late last year. The reason we did not agree for it to be considered and voted on at that time was that we believed that due process and consultation were needed. That is what we undertook to do, and that is what we did do.
That consultation process needed to consider all of the interests which were affected by this regulation. They included residents, and we letterboxed around 600 homes in the immediate area. They included builders and developers who have an interest—who either own land in that area or are proposing to build in that area. It also took account of representative bodies such as the Property Council. And we also took account of, particularly, the views of the arts community, who have a particular interest in the arts precinct. That was the task we set ourselves, and that was the process we followed. It was a process that, unfortunately, the government did not follow, which is why we are now needing to amend this regulation. It has been a less than ideal process by the government—a relatively rushed process—that has led to this.
In terms of our consultation, of those 600 residents or homes that we letterboxed, we got a fairly small number of responses, it must be said. Only a handful of responses came back. There were a few against and a couple in favour. We did have a number of responses from the arts community. I do not know the exact count on that, but it was a more substantial number. All or virtually all of those were arguing for the kind of action that Mrs Dunne will be taking today, allowing third-party appeals in the arts precinct, which is what we have sought to do.
In conducting that consultation, we had to consider what has been our policy and what continues to be our policy. The way that this has been framed, we are unable to get the exact policy outcome that we might seek. I will explain that for a moment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video