Page 565 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Further in that report are the additional comments made by Mr Collaery. Firstly, his point 6:
As the facts stand any surrender and re-grant of Concrete's lease may be open to challenge in the Supreme Court pursuant to the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act 1989 to the extent to which surrender and grant of a lease is amenable to review. The grounds of review are potentially wide and may well include a precedental decision on the correct interpretations of sections 29 and 64 of the Planning and Management Act. Such a review will not as a matter of law be a review on the merits. Pending the establishment of an accessible and affordable planning appeals mechanism, I believe that the grant of a new lease to Concretes in circumstances where any effected parties are precluded from review on the merits of the decision including the consequential decisions of design siting and building approvals, is fundamentally wrong. As matters stand in the ACT the effect of granting a new lease to Concrete Constructions will be to preclude further effective review on the merits.
And further, in point 9 of Mr Collaery's additional comment his final sentence states that:
The lease should not be accepted for surrender and a new lease granted until the Government has provided for a just, timely, affordable and accessible review mechanism.
In one of its reports the House of Assembly called on its Minister at that time to ensure that there would be an environmental inquiry into development in Civic. The joint parliamentary committee looked at the 69th variation which was the section 38 development. Now that development is completed and it is the Canberra Centre. It is completely operable. At that stage I stood before the joint parliamentary committee and recommended to that committee on behalf of the Reid Residents Association that an environmental impact statement should be a part of its recommendations. In fact, it was part of its recommendations, but was that inquiry ever conducted? No, it was not.
Similarly, the Supreme Court decision on the Canberra Times site was probably the closest thing we have had to an environmental impact statement on Civic. It would appear that we have a particular problem as far as that goes. I can tell you much more recently about such a thing. This morning it was reported this way on ABC radio:
Deputy Chief Minister Bernard Collaery says he wholeheartedly agrees and expects this will be put to the Assembly in the near future.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .