Page 3688 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ADJOURNMENT
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Berry: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
LAND (PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT)
(AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 4) 1993
[COGNATE BILL:
LAND (PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT) (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1993]
Debate resumed.
MR LAMONT: The general atmosphere about planning that the Territory Plan tries to create, in the view of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee, is enhanced by this appeals mechanism. It is, to use the jargon of the day, a user-friendly appeal system. It also means that we will have a cross-section of people from the community who will be involved in making those ultimate decisions where they are not appealable to the Supreme Court. It is my understanding that there still will be that avenue open to people where they believe that they have been seriously aggrieved by some transgression of law. They still have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court for remedy. So in the total essence of things it does not remove recourse through the courts if people believe that they have been harshly done by at law, or on a point of law, or by some sort of administrative oversight.
I think that we tend to become overly concerned about the entitlement, or what is now a presumption of an unfettered right, to have legal representation in attendance on every occasion where there may be a dispute. That sits at odds with the campaigns being run by the Law Society, as an example, which talk about the necessity of conciliation as a prelude or as a first step where a member of the community feels aggrieved about a particular issue. The Law Society, and, indeed, most of the lawyers that I have spoken to in Canberra, believe that it is absolutely essential that we promote this concept of conciliation as a first step when people consider that they have been aggrieved.
I suppose that to some extent this appeals board takes that one step further. It says to a person, "If you feel aggrieved because the actions of your neighbour are going to interfere with your amenity or your rights, you should come to us and outline what they are; and if, on a fair test, you can satisfy us that you have an argument, we will support you". I believe that it is a fair test for the tests in general are outlined in the Territory Plan. They are outlined by the mechanisms that are being developed, such as the draft guidelines for some particular areas.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .