Page 2043 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Some people drink and drive. But we do not think that everybody should be banned from driving. It is a nonsensical argument. As I said, I suspect it is merely a smokescreen because the opposition does not want to be on the record as saying that community groups, whose votes they need, should be prevented from pursuing their legitimate interests. But that is what they are saying. They should have to defend their position among the people they are seeking to disenfranchise. There are sanctions to discourage people from drink driving, and there should be sanctions to discourage people from bringing frivolous and vexatious legal actions under this legislation.
If the object of the legislation is to create a best practice system that enables legitimate community input into decisions that affect community amenity and environmental integrity, surely more elegant solutions which maximise the rights of legitimate stakeholders should be tried before effectively removing those rights by making them dependent on the minister’s approval.
For instance Minister Hargreaves has described legitimate peak bodies as daytime offices of the Greens. He regularly denigrates other organisations who question his authority and judgement. Does anyone believe that if he were the planning minister he would grant such groups standing to appeal decisions made by his portfolio agencies? And what if the Liberals gain power? Does the government think that they would be able to transcend their ideological biases and grant standing to union groups, or groups which have former Labor Party members on their boards?
There is not even a requirement for the minister to justify his or her decision under this proposed section 403A. Standing should be a right and not a privilege, and certainly not a privilege to be disposed of at the whim of a partisan, political entity. What about all the hundreds of community groups that have been in existence for years? Is the Liberal Party saying that these groups have no legitimate right, independent of a minister’s prejudices, to advocate on behalf of their members in support of the very objects that they were set up to champion?
If they have not already got a specific matter in their objects, does the Liberal Party think that they should be prevented from amending their objects clauses in order to gain standing under this legislation? Would he care to say this out loud at a community meeting? There will be plenty of opportunities for him to do so next year, and I cannot wait to hear the reaction.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.11): Very briefly, I concur with many of the views that Dr Foskey has just expressed. There might be a temptation not to grant standing to certain groups—I could think of some; the Exclusive Brethren would perhaps be at the top of my list—but it would not be appropriate for my personal prejudices, or those of any minister for planning, to come into play in this sort of way. The government will be opposing this amendment.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (10.11): I respond to some of Dr Foskey’s apparent arguments. It is clear that Dr Foskey did not read the amendments or does not understand them. She talked about neighbours being prevented from appealing. Clearly this does not affect those whose use of their land is affected to have standing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .