Page 3320 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 18 September 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have not even got an application before the Planning and Land Authority and Mr Coe is now directing the government to say, “Well, just refuse it. It doesn’t matter what the application says. It doesn’t matter what the public consultation process says. Just refuse it.” That is an absurd proposal from the Liberal Party. Either you have a problem with the application of call-in powers or you do not, but you cannot have it both ways. You cannot assert that on the one hand a decision which would be favourable to a development application would be unjust but a decision that would be unfavourable to a development application proponent would be just. That is absurd and that is not the way planning law in this city operates. It is not a process where the local council or the Legislative Assembly gets together and decides on a whim whether or not a development application should be approved. That is not the way our law works and nor should it be the way our law works.
The act sets out very clearly that there is an opportunity for the proponent to make an application. There is an opportunity then for people with an interest in the proposal to make a submission, a comment or an objection. There is then the opportunity for the proponent to reply to those matters, to seek to address them and to give their response on them. Then there is an opportunity for government agencies and other entities, such as utilities, to give their comments on whether or not they believe the proposal should be supported or rejected. And then there is a decision.
Is Mr Coe saying that that is just not relevant, that that is just not needed—that without seeing a development application, without seeing the advice of the referral entities, without seeing the advice of the planners and without seeing the advice and the comments from those with an interest in the proposal that it should just be refused?
Mr Coe: Yes.
MR CORBELL: Heaven forbid Mr Coe should ever become planning minister. If he has such a complete lack of regard for due process, administrative decision making and fairness then he will be an absolute farce if he ever is in a position to be a minister for planning. Ministers have obligations to adhere to administrative decision-making principles, fairness and merit-based assessment. To suggest that a minister should act unilaterally, without any regard to any of those matters, just shows how poorly advised and informed Mr Coe is.
The government does not support this amendment. The government reiterates that the best way for these concerns and conflicting interests to be resolved is through the planning process. There are two parties here. There are residents who are concerned about what they perceive as an impact on their homes and their properties, and those issues should be properly taken into account and assessed on their merits. But there are also other interests.
There are the interests of the proponent who wishes to build a development that they believe is lawful and in accordance with the territory plan. There are the interests of the leaseholder, the property owner, who must give their consent for development to occur. They also have rights under planning law. It is the job of the planning law to mediate these conflicting and often different interests and to seek to reconcile them,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video