Page 5797 - Week 18 - Tuesday, 10 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (4.40): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to continue on from the issue Mr Collaery raised. It is very easy to underestimate just how significant the disincentive is under a Supreme Court or Federal Court case where costs can be awarded against an objector. The disincentive really is of such a significance, I believe, that it will mean that there will be very few people who will actually take advantage of what is a quite broad opening of appeals.
It is ironic, in a way, that on the one hand we open appeals in this way and yet we close them off in the way we did with the planning legislation we put through last week. One has to question why it is that such appeals can be opened if it is not just to go to the benefit of the applicant. That certainly does appear to be the case because, whilst the developer is working on a business situation and can put aside so much money for these sorts of things, it will be almost impossible for an objector to be prepared to put themselves into a position where they might be up for not only their own costs but also the developer's costs. If we go back, for example, to the Canberra Times site, there were claims of it being in the order of $4m in terms of delay, and that sort of figure would be an incredible disincentive.
It is an appropriate time, I think, for me to raise the issue of an action that was brought by Trevor and Joan Lipscombe of Barton with reference to some aged persons units. They argued and demonstrated that a building controller acted unlawfully in approving APU plans and issuing a demolition permit. In spite of their ability to prove that, it seems that damages were awarded against them. Whilst I am aware of the results of the particular case, on the surface it appears entirely inappropriate that that should have been the case. My understanding is that it was actually the ACT Government that went for costs against people who were testing the system, and that seems entirely inappropriate.
In fact, I will take this opportunity to call on the Attorney-General to look into that case and brief me on the outcome. It seems to me that people have the right to appeal and the right to object and the right to this sort of judicial review without having to pay the sorts of costs that are associated with that, particularly when they are associated with the Government. That strikes me as being entirely inappropriate. Whilst I will support this legislation, I guess that what I am doing is flagging the issue of costs and saying that this is something that, as an Assembly, we will need to take up within the next 12 months.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of Bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .