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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4511 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

We do not know, but it is certainly worth the trial. That is really what the reports are saying - "Yes, it is worth a trial, but do not go over the top". I think that is what this legislation before us now, combined with the amendments that Mr Humphries and I have negotiated, should provide. As I say, I am open-minded about any further negotiation on those amendments.

I would like to thank members for the effort they have gone to to ensure that we have the best possible legislation for the people of Canberra. I think this will be an innovative piece of legislation that will be of benefit to the community when we go through the appropriate processes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Clause 1

Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.

Debate resumed from 18 June 1997, on motion by Ms Horodny:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (8.36): Mr Speaker, the Government, I indicate at this stage, will be supporting part of this Bill and will also be seeking to amend the Bill, but will be opposing much of the rest of the Bill on the basis that much of this debate has already been had on previous occasions. I believe that returning to the issues at this stage is not helpful and in any case, I think, runs counter to the direction in which the legislation clearly headed in amendments moved in the Assembly in 1996.

The 1996 amendment to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act - which was a Government amendment, of course - merely places decisions under the Land Act on the same footing as decisions under other Territory Acts. A person has to be an aggrieved person. There is no reason why planning and land management decisions should be exposed to review under the AD(JR) Act differently from decisions under other Acts. That is the view of the Government. The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act was amended in 1991 to provide that a person need not be an aggrieved person in order to seek a review of a decision under the Land Act, the Buildings (Design and Siting) Act or the Heritage Objects Act. The intention at that stage in moving that amendment was that wider access should be provided to merits review of decisions made under those Acts.

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