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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1062 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The proposed requirements relating to the inspection and notification of decisions ignore the fact that section 247 of the Act is about minor amendments and the process regarding objectors has been improved. It should be remembered that the practice changes also require that applications not be processed under section 247 unless they are minor. We have a process which says that it is a substantial change or an important change to the DA or it is not. That is already being done. I believe that it is being done quite effectively by the staff at PALM and they are working hard to make sure that there are no significant changes to any DA that has already been approved.

It is not possible to change the kind of development already approved or the effect of any condition on that approval. Therefore, the additional requirements of the amendments would not cause any decrease in detriment to the environment. The amendments seem unnecessary because we already have that through the formal process and then there is the decision on whether the proposed change is, in fact, minor. I think that the safeguards are there. I think that we would be adding more bureaucracy. I do not believe that the Bill adds anything to the planning process.

The other two provisions, clauses 5 and 6, relate to sections 276 and 282A of the Act, which deal with reviews of decisions under the Act. The proposed amendments remove from the sections all requirements that a person's interest be substantial and adversely affected. They are removing qualifications and providing for open slather on appeals, putting third party standing back into a position that existed before the post-Stein amendments in 1996, and then it was that a person must only have an interest that is affected. Ms Tucker's position was debated at that time and defeated. We believe that the provision has worked quite well since that time. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that there is a need to move back to something that has been debated in this place many times as we now have a system that is working effectively.

The proposed amendment to section 276 would go on to change subsection (4), as well as removing subsections (5) and (7), which place conditions on the availability of third-party appeals. We would be taking out all those conditions. What would that do? What would happen to the regulations under subsection 229(8) which limit notification of an application to any person whose interests are affected so that they may appeal? There would be no need to be an objector. For instance, the existing exclusion of a situation where the Minister, having had an environmental assessment or an inquiry and substantially dealt with the subject of an appeal, could be removed. What would you get? You would have an outcome based on an inquiry or an assessment that had already been dealt with and the answer given, but when you went to the DA you could undo that answer simply by being able to appeal. We would get a circular argument where you would get an answer and use that answer to lodge a DA but, because somebody did not like the DA, they could undo the decision that allowed you to lodge the DA in the first place. Again, that would not add anything to the process.

It is important to note that subsections 276(5) and 276(7) would be removed. Of importance also - I bring it to the attention of members because we may well end up debating it tomorrow - is that the Land (Planning and Environment) Amendment Bill 2000, which is about some of the issues that have come out of the PALM review and is

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