Page 2797 - Week 09 - Thursday, 26 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.42): Mea culpa; I can say no more. Obviously it is unfortunate that today I have had to circulate two sets of amendments to government Bills, both of which were picking up some oversights that were picked up by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I guess that that is what we have the Scrutiny of Bills Committee for. But these matters should not be occurring and I have raised it with senior officers of my department. I have to accept Mr Humphries's comments as fair criticism.
Amendments agreed to.
Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
(AMENDMENT) BILL 1993
Debate resumed from 25 March 1993, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.43): Madam Speaker, as members will surely know, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act is a very important piece of legislation because it provides for the review of administrative decisions by courts of law. It was a landmark piece of legislation which provided for that important capacity for people to challenge decisions made effectively by governments and by their agencies. The Supreme Court in the ACT is specifically empowered to test decisions, or in some cases a failure to make a decision, by Ministers and bureaucrats against certain criteria. The criteria includes a decision being in a proper form, made by a person empowered to make a decision under the legislation, whether improper motives were employed in the making of a decision, whether a decision was ultra vires. All of that kind of thing is included in that head.
These rights are very important in respect of land use in the ACT. It may be, although I do not really have any figures on this, that ADJR has been of more importance in respect of land use than any other area in the ACT. People understandably are very keen to defend the integrity of their homes and of their neighbourhoods. A certain standing to challenge decisions is built into the Land (Planning and Environment) Act and the Heritage Objects Act of this Territory but, strangely, until now, not into its sister legislation, the Buildings (Design and Siting) Act. It seems quite logical that if one has locus standi to take action against a zone determination, for example, land across the street, one should have it also in respect of the house built under that zoning determination. Of course, this is what this Bill seeks to do. It allows, in effect, a person who would be aggrieved and would have standing under the ACT's Land (Planning and Environment) Act or the Heritage Objects Act similarly to have standing to make an application to the court under the Buildings (Design and Siting) Act. Therefore, Madam Speaker, this Bill is certainly supported by the Opposition.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .