Page 3316 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 18 September 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I believe the development application process should be allowed to run its course and that every opportunity should be allowed for the community to make their case. Indeed, the Greens have spent many years arguing about the planning system and working hard to ensure there are good notifications, good opportunities for community consultation and input and for the right to appeal where mistakes are made in the decision-making process or where there are disagreements about interpretation of the law.
Some issues arise out this example. The solar auction process is currently being reviewed in light of the recent processes, and we need to think about whether the process could require a level of community consultation prior to proposals going forward. I do not think that detrimentally impacts on commercial-in-confidence considerations, and that might be something the review needs to look at. That may not improve community acceptance of the proposal, but it certainly would avoid concerns about being left in the dark. The planning process could also potentially be improved to require a level of pre-development application consultation, as is currently required for developments of buildings of a certain size.
Turning to the specifics of Mr Wall’s motion today, many statements of fact are in the motion that build a narrative of a lack of community engagement, but I am not sure that all aspects of his motion take us forward. I have circulated an amendment that I propose to move once we have dealt with Mr Corbell’s amendment that, I think, picks up the key points. I will come back to the content of that in a moment.
I appreciate that Minister Corbell’s media release on the day of the announcement made it sound like the project had the green light, although I do not believe this was a cynical attempt to wave the project through. I think that is simply the nature of the way these things tend to be written and portrayed in the media.
I have a couple of concerns with Mr Wall’s motion. I think it fails to recognise the dual processes that have been and are involved here and the need to maintain the integrity of those processes—ie, the solar auction and the development application process. I think the right place at the moment for the concerns of the residents of Uriarra to be dealt with is in the development application process, which will assess environmental impact and visual impact. Issues of noise, loss of amenity, loss of view and loss of value should also be considered through the development application process. The government stepping in and starting to liaise with the proponent about the site potential undermines the integrity of the solar auction process at this stage, so I think the DA process really is the critical point.
When it comes to call-in powers, I urge the minister not to call in this proposal. I agree with Mr Wall on that issue, and my amendment will maintain the call for the call-in power not to be used in this case. Certainly the planning minister has used the call-in power on a number of occasions, and it is well-known history that, over many years, the Greens have been vociferous opponents of the call-in power. In fact, in this Assembly we have moved many times to remove it from the legislation. Unfortunately, we tend to lose those votes—13-4 in the last Assembly and probably 16-1 in this Assembly. We tend to be a lone voice on this. Nonetheless, it remains an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video