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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4926 ..

Mr Berry: And lashed for saving paper.

MR HUMPHRIES: And for not saving paper.

Mr Berry: For saving paper.

MR HUMPHRIES: For saving paper; that is right. We are now told that, even though we cannot depart from Stein, Ms Horodny can. Mr Speaker, I think Justice Stein in his inquiry was quite wise to tighten the conditions of intervening in these circumstances. I support the provisions as we have drafted them and oppose the amendment.

MR MOORE (11.58): What a ludicrous argument! Mr Humphries knows very well that Stein was about compromise. What I said after Stein's report came down was that it was all about compromise. Indeed, apart from in one small place, it was a unanimous report. There was a business person appointed to it by your Government. Mr Speaker, it was about compromise. What I said, and it was my understanding of what Ms Horodny said, when it came down was, "If you support it all, so will we. We will accept the compromise". You did not support it all. In fact, you undermined the fundamental parts of it.

We have spoken about it earlier tonight, so I will not repeat that argument. When we look at the parts of Stein that we feel were parts of the compromise, we will deal with those. Mr Speaker, what this actually does is reverse the onus of proof. It is horrific that somebody who can claim to be about open government, about consultative government, could possibly put before us this piece of legislation that Ms Horodny's amendment tries to correct. It is an appalling thing to restrict the people who can appeal in this way. It is not just a light restriction; it is a quite significant restriction on people when they come to deal with it.

Mr Speaker, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has always had the right to remove nuisance appellants, as it sees them. That was an appropriate way to go. To now have the extra restriction that you have to actually have a substantial interest in the area to mount an appeal is quite extraordinary.

Mr Speaker, there are specific examples, which Mr Humphries asks about so often, where people would have been eliminated in terms of appeals when they have a genuine community interest in such issues. A genuine community interest does not necessarily mean that somebody has to draw on a particular group. The particular people may, for personal reasons, not want to join the Conservation Council, even though on a particular issue they happen to be at one with the Conservation Council. Mr Speaker, what we have here is a case where the Government is undermining the right of people who wish to appeal. It is the very antithesis of consultative government. It is the very antithesis of open government. I think Mr Humphries should be terribly embarrassed about it. I am totally surprised that his coalition partners would go along with this.

Amendments negatived.

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