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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4512 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I think the view of many observers of that process was that the widened access did not lead to a successful improvement of people's rights to, in effect, become parties to proceedings which they ought to have been a party to. There has been a considerable amount of time devoted to the processing of applications under the AD(JR) Act for statements of reasons. Much of this is related to applications by people who have, I think it is fair to say, no particular interest in the subject of the request. I think there is also evidence that, on occasions, the processes have been abused.

The proposal for amendment of the AD(JR) Act which we made in 1996 first appeared in the November 1996 draft Land Bill for circulation and discussion, and members were briefed on that draft. The explanatory memorandum to those amendments in 1996 refers to the amendment to the AD(JR) Act, but emphasises only the effect of the change on requests for statements of reasons. The change to standing is understood as being the vehicle for achieving the result. Ms Horodny's proposal accurately reproduces an opinion offered a few months ago in a letter to me by David Mossop, then of the Environmental Defender's Office. I have to indicate that I disagree with him, and my advice indicates that there is some inaccuracy in some of what is in that letter by Mr Mossop.

Section 276 of the Land Act is amended to provide for appeals by any person who objected, or would have but was unable to - and that is a drafting anomaly, of course, which we are coming back to amend in this Bill and which we support - and whose rights are substantially and adversely affected by the decision. The intention is to eliminate applications review by individuals who merely disagree with the decision or whose objection is not taken up by an organisation. They would have standing under the AAT Act, which provides that an organisation has standing if the decision relates to a matter included in its objects. That is a different set of criteria. Formal discussions with the AAT, I think, indicate that applicants would probably not face a much higher standing test; but the president indicated that this requires consideration. I might just say that the Stein report recommended that only adjoining lessees and occupiers or accredited local residents associations who have lodged objections should have third-party appeal rights. The amended Land Act allows broader access to review, providing that there is an interest which is substantially and adversely affected.

I have indicated that there are three amendments to the legislation which have been circulated in my name. I will explain those when we come to the detail stage. Mr Speaker, I will deal in more detail with the specific provisions that Ms Horodny's legislation gives rise to. I will indicate that certainly the provisions in clause 4 of her Bill will be supported by the Government.

MS McRAE (8.41): Mr Speaker, I want to move: That the debate be adjourned. But first I seek leave to make a brief explanation.

Leave granted.

MS McRAE: The matter before us was the subject of a round table discussion quite some months ago. My advice at that point was exactly as Mr Humphries has outlined. I have no reason to question what Mr Humphries has put before us today, except that I have had no opportunity to go back to the round table and understand both the

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