Page 2054 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is why we have opportunities of policy review in this place and, ultimately, through the ballot box. So, there are those opportunities.
This is the point Mr Barr was making in that the Labor Party seeks to achieve an appropriate balance and a balance between those who would really prefer there not to be any engagement by citizens in the review of the individual development applications, approvals or refusals, against those who would argue for open standing in absolutely all circumstances. A sensible balance needs to be struck and we need to distinguish between the opportunities for citizens in policy making versus the opportunity for review in development assessment. That is a balance that is struck well in this legislation.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (10.51): I welcome, once again, the contribution of the former planning minister. In particular I thank him for agreeing with our argument that it should only be those who are directly affected by developments who should be able to question those through the AAT, as a general rule, and that we should not be reviewing the policy setting that are put in place in the Legislative Assembly in relation to each individual development. So I thank the minister for reiterating the arguments that I was making earlier, that any old group for any old reason—which is what is going to happen under this legislation—should not be able to launch an appeal and, therefore, stifle a development and revisit many of the issues that are settled at a policy level in this forum in particular.
The minister has pointed out that there is a human rights compatibility statement with this legislation, but we know they are not really worth the paper they are written on. There was a health tribunal sometime ago where you could be detained without a warrant and for any reason for, I think, up to 14 days. The human rights compatibility statement came out of there. It went much, much further than the anti-terror laws and the ability to detain someone. This government put up a human rights compatibility statement next to it. Dr Foskey and I, I think, take with a grain of salt the human rights compatibility statement.
I find it interesting that, given Dr Foskey’s apparent commitment to third party appeal rights, she is, essentially, by opposing schedule 1, arguing for no review rights for anyone. So if we were to follow Dr Foskey’s advice and vote against this clause, given that she has not put up anything instead of it, there would be no appeal rights under this legislation.
Amendments agreed to.
Remainder of bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 281—reconsideration.
Motion (by Dr Foskey) agreed to:
That clause 281 be reconsidered.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.54): I move amendment No 1 [see schedule 5 at page 2103].
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .