Page 720 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 5 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Australian Capital Territory, allegedly the best planned city in Australia, is in crisis in planning. We know that and there is no need to point the bone of contention, at least in my speech, at the perpetrators of that crisis. But the crisis exists both in overdevelopment and, in Tuggeranong for example, underdevelopment of a certain kind. I think my friend Mr Jensen will comment further on those aspects, but what has occurred has been a clear aberration. This capital city, unlike every other capital city in Australia, has no planning appeal structure. It is an extraordinary state of affairs and one on which this new Government has not moved with the alacrity that it promised in its election comments and on rostrum after rostrum during the election period.
I remind the Assembly of an editorial in the Canberra Times which appeared in January 1988. The editorial mentioned among other things, very aptly, that "development and planning issues do not belong in a court of law which spends most of its time dealing with civil negligence claims and criminal trials". In other words, what the Canberra Times was saying there was that we need not "lawyerise" the situation into the standard courts of law.
I think general agreement has been reached that the Supreme Court of the ACT is not the appropriate venue for this matter, although we understand that the consultant Mr Mant is still toying with that proposal. The same applies to a certain extent to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Mr Speaker, I note that there is only one member of the Labor Government present for this debate. That, of course, speaks eloquently for the Labor Government's interest in this subject. One hopes that the residents of Canberra will note the apparent disinclination of the Labor Government to hear - - -
Mr Whalan: He is coming up behind him.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Whalan says he is coming along behind me. Mr Speaker, I will not resume my seat, as I am tempted to, but the issue concerning the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is that it is a specialist body. That Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as the law stands, allows the president of the federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal to appoint the members. That may be a transitional arrangement, but it is the law and that means that we may have some difficulty in terms of definition. The fact that the president of the AAT now has the principal registry in Brisbane may result in some difficulty in the ACT's securing what it wants.
There are some reasons why the Administrative Appeals Tribunal could be an appropriate body, but until there is some amending of the structure of the AAT to permit a contributor or a panel assessor, particularly a layperson expert, there may be difficulties in using that tribunal. Having regard to the recent land valuations brought forward
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .