Page 328 - Week 01 - Thursday, 12 February 2015

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, resume your seat. There is no amendment; he is just opposing the clause. There is no amendment before us at the moment. The question is that clause 8 be agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10.

MR COE (Ginninderra) (5.49): The Canberra Liberals oppose clause 10 of the bill because it gives ACTPLA the authority to disregard advice about heritage, including Indigenous heritage and trees, regarding development proposals in the impact track. As I have already said, we believe this is an unacceptable removal of the planning process for a project which is unjustified.

MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for Planning, Minister for Roads and Parking, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations, Minister for Children and Young People and Minister for Ageing) (5.50): The removal of this measure, as proposed by the opposition, is not supported. This measure is essential to permit the decision maker to take proper account of and give due weight to the priority nature of the capital metro project when assessing the relevant development application against the government referral agency advice. The measure has a limited target effect. The provision retains the ability of referral agencies to comment on proposals, and the decision maker must still take this into account in assessing and deciding the application for development approval.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12.

MR COE (Ginninderra) (5.51): I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 337].

The Canberra Liberals believe that the declaration that a development relates to light rail should be made a disallowable instrument, and I hope Mr Rattenbury thinks so too. This ensures that the decision is open to scrutiny from the Assembly. Light rail is the biggest infrastructure project the territory government has ever commissioned or will commission and if the government gets its way it will only get bigger. Therefore, the Assembly should have the opportunity to be able to disallow something which the government or the minister put forward. Therefore, we believe that a disallowable instrument is better than a notifiable instrument. Of course, it will only get up if a majority of people in the Assembly support it. We do not know why anybody in this place would not support the amendment to convert it from being a notifiable to a disallowable instrument.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video