Page 725 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 5 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Major changes were being made in Civic which were not only against the planners' own statements in their metropolitan plans about the developments of Civic, but were seemingly affecting the residential amenity of some inner city residents. Their leases had been given to them on the understanding that they would be able to have peace and enjoyment for the term of their lease. Pressures were building up by vested interests, not unlike those building up around the supporters of perpetual leasehold today. I see that only one member of the group that is seen to support that particular process is here in the Assembly at the moment. The Rally trusts that the minority Government opposite will see fit to honour its election promises on this issue. That is a promise that we will certainly keep the Chief Minister to.
In its evidence to the Langmore committee into the leasehold system in the ACT, even the NCDC gave evidence which acknowledged the need for a change to the rather expensive and cumbersome process required under section 11A of the City Area Leases Ordinance. Professor Max Neutze was commissioned by the committee to prepare a report on the Canberra leasehold system. He stated in his evidence that this system not only affected the landlords but also did not adequately provide for the rights of people who might be affected by the proposed land change. The Langmore committee also acknowledged that the main problems in the area resulted from approaches to changes to the lease purpose, and it recommended that such decisions be made to the planning and leasing authority with its decisions being subject to objection or appeal through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. My colleague Mr Collaery has already commented on that particular matter. The Langmore committee also referred to previous reports on this important issue in 1979 and 1983 which had recommended that similar action be taken. We are still waiting. I repeat; we are still waiting.
By now I trust members will be starting to appreciate that this matter of appeals on planning related issues is not something we in the Rally have dreamed up overnight; it has been around for some time. Despite recommendation after recommendation, the Canberra community is still waiting for its appeals tribunal where important decisions can be appealed against by bona fide interested parties. Never let it be said, however, that the Rally seeks to have appeals for appeals' sake. You can all rest assured that any legislation on this matter supported by the Rally will have provisions for vexatious appeals to be stopped, as my colleague Mr Collaery has already indicated.
A few cases of the user paying should solve a little problem, I would suggest, and slow learners will soon understand that the appeals process will not enable them to stop a legitimate competitor or a particular development just because they do not like the look of it. What the Rally is saying, however, is that enough time has gone by, enough trees have been destroyed, and enough reports have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .