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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4330 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

It is a fairly lengthy report that I am presenting today. It contains a number of responses from the Government for which I thank the Attorney-General. I believe that the work of the committee is continuing to ensure that legislation and delegated legislation are of a high standard. As we are at the end of the year, I would like to thank my fellow committee members, and of course our adviser, Professor Whalan, for his unfailing attention to the detail of the committee's work. I commend the report to the Assembly.




Debate resumed from 26 September 1996, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Land (Planning and Environment) (Amendment) Bill (No. 3) 1996. There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 6 they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 7.

MS McRAE (3.49): Mr Speaker, I will not be very long. The Opposition will be supporting these changes. They are logical consequences of debates that we have had in the Assembly before and statements that have been made before.

MR MOORE (3.49): Mr Speaker, that was indeed a brief speech. Although I will not be seeking any amendments, I will be opposing this legislation, because it moves the functions of the Land and Planning Appeals Board to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Originally, I said to Mr Humphries that I would be supporting the outcome of the Stein inquiry if the Government also supported it. The Government's argument has been that they have supported the majority of the findings of the Stein inquiry, but I believe - - -

Mr Humphries: Four-fifths.

MR MOORE: Four-fifths, as Mr Humphries interjects. I believe that the other fifth is where the fundamental issues are, particularly the establishment of a land authority and the establishment of a separate planning authority. To me, these are fundamental issues that would make the system work. We have had those kinds of debates in the Assembly before, as Ms McRae appropriately pointed out, and I do not wish to elaborate on them here. I believe that, even with a number of warts, the Planning Appeals Board has been a very successful system. I do not mind talking about occasional warts. People have presented to me the idea that they have not been able to establish precedents from the decisions made by the Planning Appeals Board; but I do not think a single decision of the board has been overruled by a higher court, although I may be corrected - - -

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