Page 122 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
matters going to court, and as I indicated in my previous comments earlier in the debate, there is ample opportunity for anyone who is dissatisfied with the application of the law to go to court and seek an administrative review of the decision.
The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act provides for that, and this legislation does not in any way remove that avenue. If someone believes the territory plan has been incorrectly interpreted—
Mr Seselja: I did not say I did.
MR CORBELL: But that is the suggestion from Mr Smyth, Mr Seselja, with all due respect. Mr Smyth said that the government does not want this to go back to court. That is not true. There are remedies available which are not being changed as a result of this legislation for people to seek review of a decision in the Supreme Court.
For example, if they believe the territory plan has not been applied correctly they can go to the Supreme Court and say, “We believe the planning authority incorrectly interpreted the territory plan and we want your review of that decision.” Mr Speaker, ADJR is the appropriate remedy in these circumstances.
But it is not appropriate for a developer to use the easy avenue of the AAT to frustrate a commercial right. That is what happens. I would draw members’ attention to the fact that since this regulation took effect the government has not felt, and I as minister have not felt, any need to call in an application and determine it myself. There have been no significant projects that meet the criteria that have come across my desk in that time. That says a lot to me about what was happening before then. Before then developers with significant projects of interest to the territory found themselves hindered by commercial rivals.
We saw it with the tax office buildings in the city where other commercial building owners who also had an interest in securing the tax office tenancy sought to stop the time frame for the approval and the completion of those buildings so that they could squeeze a competitor out of the race. That is what happened. Indeed, Mr Snow and his interest in the development of the industry in the tourism and resources building in the city also sought call in for similar reasons. This is not targeted at any particular individual. This is focused on ensuring that the system is not abused, and the system is, or was, being abused. Unless we provide a retrospective effect it will be abused again.
The simple principle is that the intention of the regulation should be upheld, and those decisions that have been made when the regulation is in effect should be affirmed. That is what this legislation does, and that is why we will not support Mr Seselja’s amendment.
Question put:
That amendments Nos 1 to 4 be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .