Page 617 - Week 02 - Thursday, 20 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
community consideration of and input into these proposals will be in place. The community will have the opportunity to comment on the draft special precinct area or the draft declaration of a project of major significance. Development applications to which these measures apply will be publicly notified and open to representation.
I will turn shortly to the other efficiency measures in this bill separate to the provisions of special precinct areas and projects of major significance. But before I do, I would like to emphasis why the government has preferred this bill to other possible approaches to priority projects. It is possible, of course, for the government to give some priority to particular projects through the use of the minister’s call-in process under the Planning and Development Act.
This process, while going as far as it goes, has its limitations. Importantly, there is no requirement for such decisions to be put to the public and the Assembly before taking effect. In the government’s view, a more transparent public approach is required for major projects or precinct areas that are of importance to our community as a whole. The bill puts in place such a process. The minister call-in power does not limit in any way rights of review to the Supreme Court.
The effectiveness of the power in preventing delays through litigation is limited relative to the projects of major significance proposal set out in this bill. The government could have continued to rely on project-specific legislation to override other elements of the planning process for particular projects on an as needs basis, similar to the Gungahlin Drive Authorisation Act 2004.
The government does not prefer this approach. The advantage of the proposed bill is that it sets in place a systemic approach for establishing priority areas and does so within the broader planning framework. This ensures that such matters are properly and publicly assessed and assessed in a systemic manner.
I acknowledge the contribution to the debate on these approaches to bills put to the Assembly, notably some of these put forward to in 2004 and 2008. The government believes that the bill before members today strikes the right note in terms of transparency, efficiency and working in a systemic way within the planning framework.
I would also note at this point that the ACT is not the only jurisdiction to pursue special project legislation. Such legislation is in place in several other jurisdictions including Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. All these jurisdictions have in place mechanisms that recognise the priority status of projects of critical importance. The proposed mental health facility at Symonston is an example of the type of project for which this bill is designed.
This project is of primary importance for the Canberra community. In August last year, members unanimously affirmed their support for legislation to expedite this project. I propose that this project will be the first to be considered through this legislation should it be adopted by this Assembly and I think that this is the best way to give certainty to that critical piece of community infrastructure.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video