Page 4230 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
technicalities. It is a further opportunity for delay and it makes for further exposure to appeal, not just appeal on the principles of the matter - I could accept that in certain circumstances - but appeal on technicalities: Has this particular procedure been complied with? Has paragraph 3(a), or whatever, in a particular part of the legislation been complied with to the letter?
That is the danger that one finds in that situation. Countless prescriptions and authorisations have to be complied with in the legislation, and administrative procedures are laid out. At each point, the administration can be subject to challenge under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989. Every stupid legislative provision, requiring officials to talk to other officials or give reports and papers to the Executive - for example, clause 24 - all of which could be done administratively, exposes the process to appeal on the basis that technicalities have not been complied with.
Mr Speaker, you can see my theme. I say that land administration is a major factor retarding the operation and growth, in particular of business, but also retarding the use made by ordinary citizens of the rights, which they have generally bought, to deal with their land as they see fit, within limits. The point is that those limits are not always to the effect that the broad planning objects, the general aims that we set for our city, are met.
Clearly, complexity is a major factor in this package. Extensive powers are given to the Planning Authority. The worst of these is an ability to specify in the plan limitations upon appeal rights given by the Assembly, and I am referring here to clause 7(3)(c)(ii). While overexposure to appeals is a legitimate concern, it is not for the Planning Authority to cut back on appeal rights. It may be said that the plan has to be put before the Assembly, but it is inappropriate that rights given in Acts can be taken away by subordinate instruments. This is, I think, what is called a Henry VIII clause. The Liberal Party have adopted the policy of opposing such things. Maybe we should look again at that particular provision and consider this in the detail stage.
The Liberal Party, I might also say, has a policy now requiring compensation for heritage listings. Obviously, if people have a property which is classified as a heritage property, perhaps after they first acquired it, their capacity to deal with their land as others would is limited. I do not for one moment derogate from the importance of having protection for this Territory's heritage, but I accept that by protecting the heritage in this fashion we impose a heavy burden on those individuals who happen to be the owners of heritage properties. They are given a burden which other citizens of the Territory are not bearing. We ask them to pay for our requirements that heritage be protected, and that, I suspect, is inequitable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .