Page 719 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 5 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
litigant. That sets out in general terms the specialist body required in the Territory.
We have had a Labor Government here since 11 May. We know that a consultant has been preparing for a number of months certain proposals with respect to the implementation of land use planning appeal structures, but the consultant himself knows the views of the Rally and to our knowledge has consulted the other entities involved in this issue. The Rally takes the view that that report, if not already submitted, should be submitted without delay by the Government to this Assembly and to all interested parties so that we can move very quickly on this issue which is continuing to divide the community.
The Rally mirrors any number of comments on this issue in recent times, and of course it was out of land use planning matters principally that the Rally became prominent in the ACT. In very specific terms, the Rally favours the adoption of the wide view on the question of standing of third parties to maintain appeal proceedings. To that end we favour the adoption of the principles enunciated by the Law Reform Commission in its report Standing in Public Interest Litigation, at paragraphs 228 and 271 and otherwise elaborated on in the appendix to the Law Reform Commission report which is at item (III).
Specifically, the Rally adopts the test propounded in the draft standing federal and territory jurisdiction Bill set out in a further appendix, A, to the Law Reform Commission report. In other words, the Rally itself believes that the widest possible definition of "standing" should apply. The Rally notes that the South Australian Planning Appeal Tribunal has found no apparent abuse of the planning process by third parties, despite a very wide definition of "standing" that seems to come within the ambit sought by the Rally.
The issues that have interested the public of Canberra over the years have been principally to do with the questions: "Who can object to a development?" and "Can a developer know with certainty that once given certain approvals approval can continue?". I say with considerable regret that before the abolition of the NCDC certainty got into this issue because the Rally was a principal party to negotiations that took place with, for example, the Master Builders Association and others where a broad agreement was reached in relation to the implementation of certainty in the planning appeals system.
The broad agreement was set forth in reports prepared in its dying few weeks by the National Capital Development Commission, in particular one called Land Use Planning Appeals in the ACT. Of course, we move on and Mr Mant has a number of interesting and good proposals to make. But one aspect of Mr Mant's proposal will not be accepted by the Rally, and we can tell the Chief Minister now, and that is Mr Mant's intention to reduce the level of standing to return us to pre-1970s appeal access in this Territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .