Page 2037 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007

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

---

Essentially, the minister would be saying, “There is significant public interest so this group will be allowed standing.” I will come back to the rationale for subsequent amendments, but amendment No 19 will enable the minister to grant standing to groups in certain circumstances.

MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (9.43): Whilst the megalomaniac in me might be tempted to support Mr Seselja’s amendment, I do not believe it would be an appropriate path. The government will be opposing amendments Nos 19, 20 and 21. As Mr Seselja indicated when speaking to these amendments, if passed they would significantly restrict the rights of third parties to appeal decisions of development approvals. The bill, as it stands, requires third parties to demonstrate that they would suffer material detriment from a proposed development in order to appeal a decision in the AAT.

For the purposes of community organisations, material detriment is established if the organisation can demonstrate that the proposed development is relevant to the objects and purposes of the organisation, which is consistent with current law. The proposed amendments retain the concept of material detriment but it would be fair to say that they radically reduce its scope. An organisation might be able to appeal on the basis that it may suffer adverse impacts on its use or enjoyment of the land, but this is not likely.

Effectively, if these proposed amendments were passed, community organisations would not be able to appeal decisions except with the permission of the minister. In effect, standing to appeal a decision will depend on a decision of the planning minister on whether or not it is in the public interest for an organisation to appeal a decision. Fundamentally, these amendments are inequitable because potentially they would shut out community organisations from the AAT, except with the leave of the minister.

I also believe that these amendments are impractical. The concept of public interest is not defined which, in itself, potentially will lead to unnecessary litigation on the decision of the Minister for Planning to grant standing. Another point that needs to be made is that these amendments cut directly across the jurisdiction of the AAT and represent a significant departure from the principle whether it is the courts that should determine issues of standing and non-executive government. This amendment cannot be supported.

Question put:

That amendment No 19 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

---

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