Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services—Standing Committee 10
Report 8 10
Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services—Standing Committee 11
Report 9 11
Ministerial delegations to China and Singapore 12
Ministerial statement 12
National disability insurance scheme—implementation report 21
Ministerial statement 21
Melaleuca Place—anniversary 23
Ministerial statement 23
Liquor Amendment Bill 2015 28
Energy Efficiency (Cost of Living) Improvement Amendment Bill 2015 41
Sitting suspended from 12.32 to 2.30 pm. 46
Questions without notice 46
Construction industry—alleged bullying 46
Construction industry—alleged bullying 47
Transport—light rail 48
Health—infrastructure 49
Planning—variations 52
Schools—autism 53
Transport—light rail 54
Capital works—projects 55
Schools—safety 56
Papers 59
Legislative Assembly delegation to Taiwan 59
Paper and statement by Speaker 59
Papers 60
Legislation program—spring 2015 61
Paper and statement by minister 61
Committee reports—government responses 62
Papers 62
Papers 62
Financial Management Act—instruments 65
Paper and statement by minister 65
Papers 65
Planning and Development Act 2007—variations Nos 309 and 327 to the territory plan 67
Papers and statement by minister 67
Planning and Development Act 2007—variation Nos 321, 331, 337 and 347 to the territory plan 69
Papers and statement by minister 69
Papers 74
Public housing 81
Discussion of matter of public importance 81
Energy Efficiency (Cost of Living) Improvement Amendment Bill 2015 94
Water Resources (Catchment Management Coordination Group) Amendment Bill 2015 98
NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust Repeal Bill 2015 103
Adjournment 108
Sport—racism 108
ACT Telstra business awards 109
Sport—racism 111
DonateLife Week 112
Netball World Cup 113
Greenhills Centre 116
Lions Club Gungahlin 117
The Assembly adjourned at 5.49 pm. 118
Tuesday, 4 August 2015
MADAM SPEAKER (Mrs Dunne) took the chair at 10 am, made a formal recognition that the Assembly was meeting on the lands of the traditional custodians, and asked members to stand in silence and pray or reflect on their responsibilities to the people of the Australian Capital Territory.
To the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory The following residents of the Australian Capital Territory draw to the attention of the Assembly the potential loss of Urban Open Space (PRZl) in Lyneham through sub-leasing and development, in particular by the current proposal to sub-lease and develop Lyneham Neighbourhood Oval.
Your petitioners, therefore, request the Assembly to prevent further loss of Lyneham’s Urban Open Space by (1) not entering into further sub-leases of Urban Open Space to any business enterprise, (2) not allowing further development on Urban Open Space by any business enterprise, and (3) not rezoning any land currently zoned Urban Open Space for the benefit of any business enterprise.
The Clerk having announced that the terms of the petition would be recorded in Hansard and a copy referred to the appropriate minister for response pursuant to standing order 100, the petition was received.
Ministerial response
The Clerk: The following response to a petition has been lodged by a minister:
By Mr Gentleman, Minister for Planning, dated 23 July 2015, in response to a petition lodged by Mr Coe on 5 May 2015 concerning Giralang Shops.
The terms of the response will be recorded in Hansard.
Giralang shops—petition No 3-15
The response read as follows: I understand the petition brings to the attention of the Assembly that Giralang has been without local shops for a decade, and that the petitioners request the Assembly to express their support for the completion, without further delay, of the full approved development of the shops currently under construction. Further, they call upon the Assembly to enact legislation, if necessary, to limit further legal appeal by those opposing the development.
The redevelopment of Giralang shops is currently subject to judicial review in the ACT Court of Appeal.
This matter has been the subject of an ongoing and drawn out appeal since its approval during 2011. Initially the matter was appealed in the ACT Supreme Court, then in the ACT Court of Appeal, and eventually in the High Court.
On 10 December 2014, the High Court ordered that the matter be remitted to the ACT Court of Appeal for further hearing on limited grounds.
The submissions which the parties will make at the re-hearing by the Court of Appeal are now limited to a narrow point of providing the Court with an update in relation to the cases since 2013, relied upon by each of the parties.
Parties to the matter already made written submissions, and the matter is now listed for one day of hearing on 30 July 2015.
I expect that the re-hearing by the Court of Appeal will bring final resolution to this long-standing matter.
In its submissions, the ACT government has made all possible efforts to emphasise the significant delays caused by the legal action, and the resultant impacts on the Giralang community.
When Minister Corbell used his call-in powers on 17 August 2011 to approve the redevelopment of Giralang shops, the ACT government already showed its support for the development.
It is open to the Assembly to “express their support for the completion, without further delay, of the full approved development of the shops currently under construction” as suggested in the petition. However, the timing of the decision of the Court of Appeal, after its hearing of the matter on 30 July 2015, is fundamentally in the hands of the Court.
Limitations on third party appeal rights are already in place in the ACT, and would not have prevented a judicial review appeal of this matter in the ACT Supreme Court, the ACT Court of Appeal, or the High Court. Judicial review of matters before the High Court is simply beyond the statutory jurisdiction of the Assembly.
I appreciate and welcome Mr Coe’s openness to resolve this matter by other legislative means should the current legal process continue for an unreasonable timeframe. I will consider other available legislative avenues should this matter not be resolved through the upcoming decision of the Court of Appeal.