Page 5702 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Wood: No.
MR MOORE: Well, I may be mistaken. I will not hold you to that. It was worth a try.
Mr Wood: Are you trying to con me?
MR MOORE: I thought you had, but I did not know for sure. I had not put a tick next to it. Mr Speaker, I think that this comes down to the argument about certainty that has been run on many occasions. This legislation so far has given people who are interested in development a great deal of certainty. When you read the Territory Plan in conjunction with it, they have a tremendous amount of certainty. Unfortunately, the 95 per cent of other residents of the Territory are not given any certainty whatsoever by the legislation, and less certainty if that draft Territory Plan takes effect.
Therefore, Mr Speaker, it is appropriate, since they do not have any certainty, that we at least give them an opportunity to have the right to appeal, and to be able to appeal in cases other than when there is a direct impact on their lives, such as when it can be shown in legal terms that their house is going to fall down if the next-door neighbour excavates, or something to that effect. We have clear and obvious examples where it is appropriate for people to object even though they are not actually directly affected by an application. I think it is most important that people in Canberra have that right simply to appeal - not a right to do anything else, just a right to appeal.
DR KINLOCH (4.58): I would point out to the drafters that in any case the meaning of "who may be affected" is ambiguous. It could mean when there is some direct impact on them, or it could mean someone who feels strongly about it. The very term should be excluded on the grounds of ambiguity.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.59): This is a key part of the debate on this legislation because it begins the argument - it may end it, depending on how people vote - about appeal rights. The Bill is a vast improvement on existing provisions. I do not think any member of this Assembly will dispute that. Appeal rights, in practice, hardly exist at the moment.
I would remind members of why the existing provisions for public consultation and for objections by persons under this clause were included in the first place. I think it is important to put some matters on the record. Clause 235, as it now stands, has appeared in the same form in most of the successive drafts of the Bill. It was in the Land Use (Approvals and Orders) Bill released by the Alliance in December 1990. It was in the presentation copy of the Land (Planning and Environment) Bill drafted by that Government shortly before that partnership was dissolved.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .