Page 4772 - Week 16 - Monday, 25 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This is an appropriate Bill to be supported by the majority in this chamber, who should not be relegated, as we were, by a minority Chief Minister intent upon altering the political history behind legislation which she has introduced and which, ironically, will be administered by another Minister. Never again should the processes of this parliament be used for personalised grandstanding and the personal insult used by the Chief Minister. I commend the Bill to the house.
Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned.
BUILDINGS (DESIGN AND SITING) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
MR COLLAERY (11.16): I present the Buildings (Design and Siting) (Amendment) Bill 1991. I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Members will recall the design and siting dispute early this year between a builder with approved plans at McManus and Tuthill Places, Calwell, and other residents. Even though no appreciable work had taken place, it emerged that an approval given under section 6 of the Buildings (Design and Siting) Act 1964 was not able to be varied or revoked, even by a decision maker who may have erred. It further emerged that, even if the approval had been given contrary to any relevant NCDC policy, the Territory Planning Authority may not, in the absence of a court order setting aside the approval, treat it as a nullity.
This situation is not changed by the Interim Planning Act or by the Land (Planning and Environment) Bill 1991, as presented in this Assembly. At least this is the view adopted by successive governments. I do not, however, with respect, agree with this view. In my view, a combination of section 27 of the Interpretation Act 1967 and section 7 of the Buildings (Design and Siting) Act 1964 allows an approval to be revoked.
It is in the public interest, however, that this disagreement of view be put beyond doubt. Accordingly, this amendment will create a situation where approvals can be revoked. Obviously, no government facing a potential compensation claim would consider acting capriciously to revoke an approval on technical grounds or any other grounds after a party has acted to his or her detriment. I stress that the law surrounding section 27 of the Interpretation Act 1967 effectively says that the power to make includes the power to unmake or revoke, unless a statute expressly says otherwise. This Bill simply clarifies the law in an important aspect and will cover the significant period before the new Territory Plan and the new planning legislation are implemented. I commend the Bill to the house.
Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .