Page 2052 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.42): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 138 to 160 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR BARR: I move amendments Nos 138 to 160 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 2065].
For the sake of saving time, I will not go through the lot of them. They are minor technical amendments.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (10.43): I will be opposing amendment No 159 [see schedule 3 at page 2102].
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.44): I do not seem to be on the running sheet but I oppose schedule 1 on page 339. The reason I am opposing this provision is that I do not think it goes far enough. AAT appeal rights should be very wide, and the opportunity for AAT appeal should be the default position for every administrative decision made under these acts. We have a human rights law. Everybody is meant to have standing before a court, and it should be extended to the planning law as well. Of course there should be mechanisms to prevent the abuse of these provisions by competitors or by frivolous and vexatious litigants. No-one is denying that, least of all the Greens.
My anti-SLAPP strategic law suits against public participation legislation recognises that business groups and some individuals do abuse the legal system to pursue their own interests to the detriment of the democratic process. But I am not going to take this back to its illogical extreme and suggest that all legal actions to seek to stop actions or extract damages from people who are improperly interfering with property rights should be forbidden. That would deprive innocent people of legitimate rights to carry on legitimate businesses. Despite what Mr Seselja likes to put about, I have never been opposed to responsible, legitimate and appropriate developments.
I welcome the inclusive nature of the definition of material detriment under clause 411. It represents some measure of redress to the developer-biased nature of the legislation, but it does not go far enough. Why are community groups only given standing to challenge decisions made under proposed section 158? The Environmental Defenders Office submission on these planning reforms to the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment goes into considerable detail regarding the merits of expanding appeal rights. The paper debunks the argument that wider appeal rights necessarily lead to a flood of appeals that would bog down and stymie legitimate developments. I commend the EDO’s paper to members.
Debate interrupted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .