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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4336 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I gather that Mr Moore says he bases a large part of his opposition to this legislation on the fact that the Government has not supported the Stein package in full.

Mr Moore: That is not what I said. I said that I would have gone with it if you had supported the full package.

MR HUMPHRIES: I accept what Mr Moore is saying, but I would put it to Mr Moore that supporting a part of the planning process which has been viewed by almost everybody who has commented on it as having been unsatisfactory or a failure - - -

Mr Moore: That is not my experience.

MR HUMPHRIES: That was the Stein report's view. That is the view of everyone I have spoken to, Mr Moore, including, I thought, you until not so long ago. If that is the view of the majority of the people, I think it would be unfortunate to want to oppose the legislation merely because the Government has committed some other transgression which it needs to be punished for. I think putting it on the basis that there are a number of warts in the legislation is a little bit of a longbow - or rather a little bit of a short bow. I think there are a great many things with respect to the operation of the board that I could draw attention to.

I want to respond to the suggestion that the Land and Planning Appeals Board has never, in Mr Moore's knowledge, been overruled by the Supreme Court. That may be true. I do not know whether it is or it is not, but I do know that there have been a large number of occasions when the Government has been asked to formulate a position in respect of an appeal to the Supreme Court from the Land and Planning Appeals Board and in looking at the decision of the Land and Planning Appeals Board it has had to concede that mistakes in process, in rules of natural justice or in some aspect of law have been made by the board. On a significant number of occasions since I have been Minister, I have needed to sit down and work out how the concerns that have been expressed legitimately about a decision of the board can be accommodated without having to run the matter all the way up to the Supreme Court. The actual record of overrulings by the Supreme Court does not demonstrate the true extent to which there have been problems with the process. Mr Speaker, this legislation is quite important to making our planning system work better, and I would urge the Assembly very strongly to support this legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Mr Moore: Mr Speaker, in rising to speak to the legislation again, I think it is important to draw attention to a comment made by Mr Humphries - - -

Mr Humphries: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we actually dispensed with the detail stage of the legislation. If Mr Moore wants to have leave, he can have it; but we have actually dispensed with the detail stage.

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