Page 1032 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
government did not let the community and stakeholders know this was happening until the very last minute. This is important legislation and I think it should be looked at very carefully before it is voted on.
The Weston Creek Community Council said:
I would say that the bill has been brought in with what I would term almost obscene haste. There has been no effective consultation on it. I think this hearing has been an afterthought after public criticism was raised by the community through a number of associations.
Mr Edquist said:
If it was the executive’s intention to make things difficult, they have succeeded at least in part. But I would note that community consultation where the community does not get the opportunity to express its views is not really consultation. I think it is a pity in a way, because I do not think it enhances the dignity of the Assembly that the executive is using it in this way. It is not really appropriate.
The National Trust of Australia (ACT) said:
The time frame for review of this act is something which concerns us greatly.
If the point of the committee was to get community and professional opinion, the take-out message was that consultation was non-existent and the bill should not be passed.
I believe the ball is in Shane Rattenbury’s court. Will he stand by his commitment to the government on this bill or will he represent the community and every single witness who appeared before the committee and every single submission which was put forward to the committee? No witness expressed a view that the bill should be passed in its current form. The vast majority, if not all, advised the committee of their very serious concerns.
Again, Ms Le Couteur said in her submission the following:
The new Bill will clearly make planning more political as the planning for possible large, and certainly important, areas of the territory can be basically determined politically. If the government has a majority in the Assembly then using the ‘major project’ or ‘special precinct’ powers will mean that it can operate the planning system without significant public consultation, it is so chooses.
Ms Margaret Fanning’s view, which was presented to the committee in a submission, was shared by other witnesses who presented at the public hearing:
It is simply not clear why this sort of change is either necessary or desirable. In particular it is not clear why the designation of a special precinct with development rules appropriate to that precinct could not be achieved by the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video