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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4338 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

On 22 June 1995 the Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning announced that it was proposed to transfer the functions of the Appeals Board to the ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Board is to become a division of the AAT.

In fact, in this report there is no recommendation at all that this be the case. The recommendations, as I read them, say that, if it is going to occur, then you should do a number of things. The report continues:

At present (and since 1993) the AAT jurisdiction under the Land Act is confined to that arising under ...

It mentions certain sections and goes into detail generally about the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. At page 310 of the report, there is a comment about the Land and Planning Appeals Board which supports what Mr Humphries said, although I disagree with it to a certain extent. It states:

This was hailed as an informal community-oriented tribunal, capable of resolving disputes quickly and cheaply. In a very short time the Appeals Board has come under sustained criticism, it being suggested that the Board has been unprofessional, lacks legal expertise and the ability to properly reason decisions. The Government has announced that it intends to legislate to make the Board a new division of the AAT.

The thrust of what you are saying is in the report, but there is no recommendation that that is what should happen. Recommendation 93 states:

any order given by the Land Manager shall be effective immediately.

There is not going to be a land manager in the sense that Stein meant. It goes on:

The order is only stayed upon an appeal to the AAT ...

There is a reference to the AAT there. Recommendation 95 states:

`any person' should be entitled to approach the AAT or Supreme Court to civilly enforce breaches of the Land Act without being required to establish common law standing.

Are you going to implement that? Recommendation 96 states:

parties to an AAT appeal arising out of the Land Act should be entitled to be legally represented or represented by some other person with the leave of the AAT.

It accepted a decision already made by you that that was what was going to happen. It certainly did not recommend that. I think it is appropriate that you clarify for the Assembly that that is the case.

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