Page 2042 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
very strong likelihood that not only the commercial competitors but also groups that are simply anti development will be able to hold things up.
That feeds very much into the issue of housing affordability. When there are these unreasonable delays it is not necessarily the developer or the builder who suffers, it is often home buyers. If these delays occur across the territory it feeds into the price of buying an apartment or a home. That is a real concern to the Liberal Party and to the opposition. The government has not in any way got the balance right. That is why these amendments should be supported.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.04): While I certainly agree with Mr Seselja that there can be vexatious interruptions to development, we also have to acknowledge that while they may seem vexatious to the person being held up, they may be very deeply felt by the person making that objection. That was probably the case with Mac Dickins. I do not think that concern about some of these people is felt just by developers; I think that there are community organisations that do not necessarily always stand behind some members in the community that do not do their cause well.
I have to speak very strongly about this amendment. With it, Mr Seselja seeks to do away with the appeal rights of community organisations. Apparently he wants to make their rights contingent on the whim of the minister of the day. We have heard Mr Seselja arguing that community groups should not be allowed to have standing to challenge inappropriate development proposals. This is a remarkable proposition for a representative of a party that purports to represent community interests, personal freedoms and small government.
What happened to his strong championing of the certainty of rights of property holders? It seems that not all rights are created equal, and democratic rights to participate in the planning process are not to be accorded the same value as the sanctity of property owners to do whatever they choose with their property regardless of the impact they may have on their neighbours, the environment or the community at large.
It seems that the Greens’ concern about ministerial discretion is misplaced and antidemocratic when it applies to the amenity and rights of the broader community, but when individual property rights are the subject of ministerial discretion, it is an antidemocratic outrage.
The basis for Mr Seselja’s opposition to legal redress for community groups is that bogus groups may form to oppose developments. As he has a forest activist background, I remind him of the so-called forest protection society. Think about Timber Communities Australia, which is actually funded by the National Association of Forest Industries. Yet it purports to represent the little folk.
These things are a real problem for everybody. Bogus groups will form if they see a gain in it. But there are ways to deal with that. Other jurisdictions provide powers for courts and tribunals to identify and strike out vexatious claims and to impose monetary penalties if they are warranted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .