Page 3689 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 20 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That, in my view, is the first step that the Law Society and the legal fraternity are trying to achieve in the wider legal sense in the ACT. The concern being raised by some members of the Law Society about how people are able to be represented by members of the legal profession is answered, I think, by that sort of argument. I noted Mr Kaine's comments about having a concern about this matter. He expressed that concern equally as eloquently during the considerations by the PDI Committee, but I am extremely pleased to see that he believes that time should be allowed to see whether this can work as the Minister has outlined in this legislation.
Madam Speaker, a number of concerns have been raised within the community about the concept of appeal where there is an incursion outside of the development envelope on a block by, say, a garage or a carport. One concern was that there may be delays in dealing with the processing of such applications. There has been some comment on one of the radio programs, the name of which escapes me, on the ABC early in the morning.
Mr Humphries: Mark Giffard?
MR LAMONT: No, I think it is after Mr Giffard. He has this program about revolving doors, anyway; so I am not quite sure. On that program there was some suggestion that this will cause great consternation and great concern. Madam Speaker, to justify the decision that the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee made in its recommendations to the Government about the development envelope concept and about the appeals board, I say that we should not accept, as a premise for planning legislation and the Territory Plan, that we have second-rate solutions to those concerns which end up with the neighbour being aggrieved for the next 20 years about what has happened. That, unfortunately, is the situation that applied under the old rules and under the old Territory Plan. The appeals right, if you like, had to be exercised through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, or, indeed, was not countenanced under the old regime.
What we have here, I believe, is an equitable mechanism. The appeals board provides us with an equitable mechanism to resolve those differences. I, as an applicant to erect a carport or a garage, cannot just go ahead and do it where it may impact upon the amenity of my neighbour for the next 20 or 30 years. I think it is reasonable - - -
Mr Humphries: You cannot put a carport in Deakin. You would lower the neighbourhood.
MR LAMONT: I am not yet in Deakin. Nor am I going to be there, Mr Humphries, much to your chagrin; but never mind. Wherever I do reside finally, we will still enjoy the fun and games of the next election. Madam Speaker, what it will allow is for the rights of my neighbour to be taken into account.
It is important to place on the record again that in a person's life the purchase of their land and home is, in general, the single largest capital investment that they will make.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .