Page 2036 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Those long-suffering members from that Assembly will remember the circumstances prevailing when the Act was passed. If my memory is correct, over 100 amendments were moved during the final debate, many in handwriting and with no input from the parliamentary draftsperson. Some members may recall that an amendment passed in the morning had to be revoked in the afternoon, after officials pointed out that it rendered one section of the Bill unworkable. Given these circumstances and the contentions raised in comment during the formulation of the Bill, the Government will give consideration to the details of Mr Todd's report in its review of the legislation. The Government indicated during the debate on the legislation that it would be reviewing the provisions of the Act after it had seen how they were operating.
There are three additional items in the Todd report that I wish to address. The first is the point made that the statutory processes were not followed completely by the applicant in relation to the lease variation. The Land Act requires that adjoining leaseholders be notified by post of any proposed lease variation. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide such notification. The Department of the Environment, Land and Planning advises applicants of the processes to be followed, which include the advertising of the proposal in the Canberra Times. The department requires applicants to sign a statutory declaration to the effect that notice has been given by post to adjoining lessees; the proposal has been advertised in the Canberra Times; persons having an estate or interest in the lease to be varied have been notified; and signs detailing the proposal have been placed on the blocks in question.
A statutory declaration to this effect was signed by the proponents on 16 October 1992. The department started to receive objections from adjoining lessees less than a week later. It therefore seems reasonable for the department to conclude, given the statutory declaration and the almost immediate response from adjoining lessees, that the statutory process had been followed. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the reason for specifying "by post" in legislation dealing with such matters is to draw upon the provisions of the Interpretation Act, which states that, if evidence of posting is provided, a notice shall be deemed to have been received even if such receipt is denied.
I am certain that in most circumstances a prospective recipient of a notice would argue that it would be better to hand deliver the notice if evidence of posting is considered evidence of receipt. It may be within the strict letter of the law that the statutory process was not followed in this respect by the applicants, even though they declared that it was. However, the intent of the provision was clearly complied with, because it is evident from their response that adjoining lessees were aware of the proposal.
The next point I wish to address is the fact that the project is a joint venture between the Housing Trust and a private development company. This fact and the role of the Housing Trust are addressed specifically in Mr Todd's report. I would like to place on record two of his comments. The report states:
The fact of the combination of public and private interests did not as I see it create any difficulties that have arisen.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .