Page 537 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
traditionally allowed in legislative change in situations where rights can be affected. We have all said things here about the problems of retrospective legislation.
It does appear, on advice available to me, that there is no scope, as Mr Kaine mentioned, to alter the current approvals. There is scope, of course, always, for this Assembly to jointly take the responsibility were it to plunge into retrospective legislation. We all caution ourselves about doing that, do we not, because it is a monstrous precedent and a very unwelcome one. Were we to do that, I doubt that, in morality at least, we still would not have to bear up to a claim for compensation. That quantum is a very important issue. I believe that all members here, although we have taken a little bit of political point scoring in this debate, understand the situation that has arisen. The Government Law Office will be asked to see whether there are any legal avenues in the matter, bearing in mind the other matters I have mentioned.
MR WOOD (4.16): Mr Speaker, people's rights should not be restricted or inhibited simply on the ground that there does not appear to be anything that we can do. I know that the various rules we have and for which we are substantially responsible do lay down what should and should not occur, but where citizens' rights find difficulty in working their way through established rules I believe that we ought to bend everything we can to see that those rights are upheld.
I have not seen this property, but I have been briefed by my colleagues in this chamber, and I believe that the people who already live in this area do have a legitimate complaint. We are supposed to be an enlightened planning city, a model for other parts of Australia, if not the world; yet I know that in other parts of Australia, were this situation to arise, the citizens would have been informed at an early stage, before planning approval was given, that there were proposals that could impact on their building.
Mr Jensen: Not so, Bill.
MR WOOD: I am not talking about Canberra; I am talking about other places in Australia.
Mr Jensen: Yes. It is not so.
MR WOOD: Well, I will tell you about them. You have only got to go down to the coast, not far from here, to find that that does occur. It is not very far away at all. People are refused a building permit if their building will obstruct a view. I know cases where that has occurred. So this enlightened community has left, in the past, a gap that ought to be filled. It may be that because we have a policy in the ACT that does not allow hills generally to be built upon, although obviously we do go up the sides to some extent, the problem has not arisen more in the past.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .