Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4331 ..

Mr Humphries: They have often been negotiated down, though, back to the other court, on the basis of a mistake of the board.

MR MOORE: Mr Humphries may like to elaborate on that. The board was established not as a legal entity and as a legal body. It was established to make commonsense decisions about planning issues affecting people in this Territory. It was established so that people could make appeals at a low cost and without representation. They are the real issues. I believe that in introducing the legislation the Labor Government provided a very useful device for dealing with issues of great conflict for the individuals involved, although sometimes not of great moment to the community as a whole but sometimes of significance for the community as a whole. A recommendation of an Assembly committee on the Tuggeranong Homestead, or it may even have been an Assembly decision, was overturned by the Planning Appeals Board. That certainly required correcting. For all that, I think a lot of the problems were teething problems and the board actually did provide a useful device.

Had Mr Humphries accepted the full range of the Stein inquiry, then I would have also accepted this particular legislation. I realise that this legislation is going to go through. The Opposition has indicated that it will support the legislation. I believe that it is not the most appropriate way to go. We would be far better off retaining an appeals board that is as cheap as possible and as accessible as possible. I think that is what the Land and Planning Appeals Board has been. By moving to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, there will be some legalistic advantages but they will come at the expense of ordinary people in the community getting commonsense decisions.

Mr Speaker, for me and I suppose for most people, this decision is an on-balance decision. There are some arguments about the Planning Appeals Board that carry some weight and there are some arguments about the AAT that carry some weight. I do not want any of my arguments to be construed as being negative towards the AAT. Rather, they support an on-balance decision about the advantages of the board. They are the prime reasons why I will be opposing this legislation.

MS HORODNY (3.54): These Bills are essentially returning the planning appeals system to what existed before 1994. The Land and Planning Appeals Board was established at the end of 1993 through amendments to the Land Act. Before that time planning appeals were handled by the AAT. The questions that must be addressed are whether the reasons why the Planning Appeals Board was established in the first place have changed or have become invalid, whether the board has somehow failed in its task and therefore needs to be replaced, and whether the AAT is a more appropriate way of dealing with planning appeals. In addressing these questions, it is instructive to go back to the original debate in 1993, and before that to the establishment of the Territory Plan. At the time, the Assembly's PDI Committee inquired into the draft Territory Plan and noted community concerns about existing appeals processes through the AAT. The committee report stated:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .