Ms MARTIN - 1999-10-12
Will he concede that, if he and his government were really interested in the community’s views on planning, they would have issued a discussion paper, not a draft bill; they would have organised meetings with community groups where the minister was represented, not relied on those groups to invite the minister and then receive a public servant to explain the bill; and they would have met with mayors and the Local Government Association long before this sittings of parliament? Will he now concede that the only reason he is prepared to change his mind is that he has been beaten into submission by an effective campaign against him?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, a noted Labor luminary once used the description: ‘You’re like a bunny in the headlights’. One cannot match that description, particularly when one refers to the Labor Party’s and the Leader of the Opposition’s attitude right throughout this debate on the Planning Act. The reality is that Darwin City Council has done, in terms of generating public opinion, what a responsible opposition, if they were doing their job and had any interest in community concern and interest, should have been doing.
In terms of the discussion draft, which is essentially what it is, if the object of your question is that the CLP government somehow mucked up because we didn’t put out a discussion paper as opposed to a discussion draft bill – well, crucify us. The Labor opposition have run absolutely dead on the issue. They haven’t been able to establish a point of view either way.
A couple of days before parliament starts, the Leader of the Opposition somehow tries to take from the Lord Mayor of Darwin his strategies and his issues and purport that they are her own, that they are in fact her policy, when the reality is we haven’t seen a policy yet from the Leader of the Opposition. She has spoken since February about her policies. February, March, April, May, June, July, August - every month she comes out with spurts of her policies. We have yet to see one of them.
In relation to the PlanningAct, the simple facts are these. The government put out a discussion draft – an unusual step, some might say. Governments can introduce an act into parliament. As everyone would know, unless they’re running reckless myths out there, during the period the act lies on the Table in parliament, that’s the time for public consultation and discussion. What we did in this case, because of the seriousness of the issue, was to put out a draft act in August - it’s now October - precisely so that the public could put forward their views on this very serious issue which we know as a government concerns a great range of people, particularly local councils and LGANT. That’s precisely why we put it out as a draft act.
There have been some myths peddled – namely that the government had a preset position, that the government intended to hold that position, and that the government intended to ram through this legislation in these sittings, none of which are true. The reality is that the draft has been out there. We have received submissions - not a lot, frankly. Most are form letters. A very comprehensive and expensive campaign has been run by Darwin City Council. As a result of that campaign and the representations from different community groups, from LGANT, from Alice Springs Town Council, we have moved ...
Ms Martin: What about Palmerston?
Mr BURKE: The Leader of the Opposition asks: ‘What about Palmerston?’. The officers’ advice to Palmerston Council was that the details of the act as it stood were quite good in their terms and they saw no problems with it. That is the situation for Palmerston Council. That is the advice from the officers of Palmerston Council.
There were central concerns voiced by the Lord Mayor of Darwin, one of which was the representation of council on the Development Consent Authority. Initially the Consent Authority was to consist of one representative to be appointed by council and represent council’s views. We have now changed that to ensure that there will be 2 local government members, 2 community members and a chairman. This structure ensures that the authority is representative of the community and is not just a summit report from a government instrumentality.
The minister’s call-in powers were of particular concern. They were, I believe, widely misunderstood, as if somehow, as the act was written, more power was given to the minister. Those changes have been dropped completely in the legislation we will introduce, and the minister’s powers will remain unchanged from those that are in the present act.
Whenever there is a change to any component of the planning scheme, the Development Consent Authority will conduct a hearing into the proposed changes after the public consultation period has closed and then report to the minister. Another change was required. Local government will have a right to appear and make representations to these hearings.
The minutes of the Development Consent Authority will be a public document. But a point I do insist on is that the voting position of individual members of the Consent Authority will be not made public. I believe to do so would put them in a difficult situation. Certainly, it would not allow them freedom of expression in terms of how they wish to vote. The Lord Mayor of Darwin agrees with me on that particular issue.
Where the Minister makes a decision on a change to a component of the planning scheme, he will give his reasons for the decision, further advancing the objective of improving the transparency of the planning processes.
Where there is an application for an exceptional development permit, the Development Consent Authority will conduct a hearing and report to the minister. It should be noted in this context that exceptional development permits will be confined to existing non-conforming uses where it can be clearly demonstrated that the use of such a permit is preferable to amending the planning scheme.
All development applications will be advertised. The power for the Development Consent Authority to waive the advertising requirements will be removed.
Essentially, there is agreement by the government to a composite list of concerns put forward in all of the representations - putting aside those who will never be pleased, those who want the whole act thrown out and a fresh start made. Well, sorry, that’s not what we intend to do. We intend to move forward with this legislation accommodating the majority of concerns.
On the issue of third-party appeals, I have made my position very clear to the Lord Mayor and I will continue to hold that position. We remain unconvinced that third-party appeal rights serve any necessary purpose beyond submissions and hearings by the Development Consent Authority, which has been structured specifically to represent community concerns.
The issue is, where are we now? The legislation will be introduced. It will be introduced reflecting those amendments and changes which I believe the community groups want, and the legislation will remain on the Table for further consultation and debate over the ensuing month or so until the November sittings.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, a noted Labor luminary once used the description: ‘You’re like a bunny in the headlights’. One cannot match that description, particularly when one refers to the Labor Party’s and the Leader of the Opposition’s attitude right throughout this debate on the Planning Act. The reality is that Darwin City Council has done, in terms of generating public opinion, what a responsible opposition, if they were doing their job and had any interest in community concern and interest, should have been doing.
In terms of the discussion draft, which is essentially what it is, if the object of your question is that the CLP government somehow mucked up because we didn’t put out a discussion paper as opposed to a discussion draft bill – well, crucify us. The Labor opposition have run absolutely dead on the issue. They haven’t been able to establish a point of view either way.
A couple of days before parliament starts, the Leader of the Opposition somehow tries to take from the Lord Mayor of Darwin his strategies and his issues and purport that they are her own, that they are in fact her policy, when the reality is we haven’t seen a policy yet from the Leader of the Opposition. She has spoken since February about her policies. February, March, April, May, June, July, August - every month she comes out with spurts of her policies. We have yet to see one of them.
In relation to the PlanningAct, the simple facts are these. The government put out a discussion draft – an unusual step, some might say. Governments can introduce an act into parliament. As everyone would know, unless they’re running reckless myths out there, during the period the act lies on the Table in parliament, that’s the time for public consultation and discussion. What we did in this case, because of the seriousness of the issue, was to put out a draft act in August - it’s now October - precisely so that the public could put forward their views on this very serious issue which we know as a government concerns a great range of people, particularly local councils and LGANT. That’s precisely why we put it out as a draft act.
There have been some myths peddled – namely that the government had a preset position, that the government intended to hold that position, and that the government intended to ram through this legislation in these sittings, none of which are true. The reality is that the draft has been out there. We have received submissions - not a lot, frankly. Most are form letters. A very comprehensive and expensive campaign has been run by Darwin City Council. As a result of that campaign and the representations from different community groups, from LGANT, from Alice Springs Town Council, we have moved ...
Ms Martin: What about Palmerston?
Mr BURKE: The Leader of the Opposition asks: ‘What about Palmerston?’. The officers’ advice to Palmerston Council was that the details of the act as it stood were quite good in their terms and they saw no problems with it. That is the situation for Palmerston Council. That is the advice from the officers of Palmerston Council.
There were central concerns voiced by the Lord Mayor of Darwin, one of which was the representation of council on the Development Consent Authority. Initially the Consent Authority was to consist of one representative to be appointed by council and represent council’s views. We have now changed that to ensure that there will be 2 local government members, 2 community members and a chairman. This structure ensures that the authority is representative of the community and is not just a summit report from a government instrumentality.
The minister’s call-in powers were of particular concern. They were, I believe, widely misunderstood, as if somehow, as the act was written, more power was given to the minister. Those changes have been dropped completely in the legislation we will introduce, and the minister’s powers will remain unchanged from those that are in the present act.
Whenever there is a change to any component of the planning scheme, the Development Consent Authority will conduct a hearing into the proposed changes after the public consultation period has closed and then report to the minister. Another change was required. Local government will have a right to appear and make representations to these hearings.
The minutes of the Development Consent Authority will be a public document. But a point I do insist on is that the voting position of individual members of the Consent Authority will be not made public. I believe to do so would put them in a difficult situation. Certainly, it would not allow them freedom of expression in terms of how they wish to vote. The Lord Mayor of Darwin agrees with me on that particular issue.
Where the Minister makes a decision on a change to a component of the planning scheme, he will give his reasons for the decision, further advancing the objective of improving the transparency of the planning processes.
Where there is an application for an exceptional development permit, the Development Consent Authority will conduct a hearing and report to the minister. It should be noted in this context that exceptional development permits will be confined to existing non-conforming uses where it can be clearly demonstrated that the use of such a permit is preferable to amending the planning scheme.
All development applications will be advertised. The power for the Development Consent Authority to waive the advertising requirements will be removed.
Essentially, there is agreement by the government to a composite list of concerns put forward in all of the representations - putting aside those who will never be pleased, those who want the whole act thrown out and a fresh start made. Well, sorry, that’s not what we intend to do. We intend to move forward with this legislation accommodating the majority of concerns.
On the issue of third-party appeals, I have made my position very clear to the Lord Mayor and I will continue to hold that position. We remain unconvinced that third-party appeal rights serve any necessary purpose beyond submissions and hearings by the Development Consent Authority, which has been structured specifically to represent community concerns.
The issue is, where are we now? The legislation will be introduced. It will be introduced reflecting those amendments and changes which I believe the community groups want, and the legislation will remain on the Table for further consultation and debate over the ensuing month or so until the November sittings.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016