Page 2224 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
With notification, both parties somewhat did a straw man here. I would like to read out from my explanatory statement what the requirements would be for notification. What my amendment would do would be to insert a standard so that the validity of the DA will be affected if the failure to comply with notification requirements unfavourably affected public awareness or restricted opportunities to make representations.
Mr Barr suggested that the mere omission of a comma could mean that the notification was invalid. I think that what he has done in that is actually belittle the experience of people where the notification was invalid. Nobody is suggesting a mere comma would be the issue. But in the case of Latham, the DA simply did not include anything about the development. It was merely about the lease purpose change. Is Mr Barr seriously suggesting that this was a reasonable notification?
To answer Mr Seselja’s comments about notification and the possible time issues involved with poor notification, I would also point out in terms of notification that the onus is also on the developers, whether they are large or small, to ensure that ACTPLA is correctly notifying the development. If a developer realises that the development has not been properly notified then, of course, they could contact ACTPLA and have it notified so that it is properly rectified. There is no reason that this requirement should mean any more time was required for notification. But as a result of the current laws there is a development going ahead in Latham where we know that some members of the community oppose it.
They were not in a position to make any comments about it or be part of an appeal. Continuing on with Latham, I mention also the human rights component. Given that the notification was not carried out properly, Professor Peta Spender, who is the presidential member of ACAT and who heard the interlocutory application, examined the composite process of this case in February this year. Although ACAT did not have jurisdiction to order a re-notification, she found that:
… the respondent has the same obligations as the Tribunal under section 40B of the Human Rights Act to give proper consideration to a relevant human right and recommends … that it considers its own obligations as a public authority to preserve and foster the rights of potential affected parties under section 21 of the Human Rights Act and to make arrangements to renotify the development proposal.
When I raised this matter through questions without notice first with Mr Barr and then Mr Corbell following the ACAT finding, I was disappointed that neither our planning minister nor our minister responsible for human rights was concerned about this loophole in the legislation. It has been suggested to us that there should be a formal process whereby the government should respond to recommendations from ACAT. This does seem like a reasonable proposition which we will continue to follow up with the government.
There has been a lot of discussion here about standing. I must say, as someone who is interested genuinely in planning, that it has been very frustrating to me to find that both the Liberal Party and Labor Party do not want people who have a genuine
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video