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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4765 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

memorandum that "interests" was the word that should have appeared in paragraph 276(1)(b); but, in fact, "rights" was the word that appeared. Subsequently, on 24 June, an amendment was actually put through and the word "interests" was substituted for "rights"; but, in many an instance now, people are confused. I gather that they are dealing, not with the explanatory memorandum or the revised Bill in June, but with the primary Act, which has "rights" rather than "interests".

We are going to agree to this Bill in principle - not because the issues that are raised in it are all ones that we are comfortable with agreeing to, but because by way of amendment we are going to get back to at least fixing up a problem that began just about a year ago. Of course, that does not help anyone that has been caught up in the mess in the last year. So, it is with a level of frustration that I rise to deal with this issue, because it actually should have been dealt with at several points along the way in the last year. I am not really pointing the finger at anyone - it is as much my fault as anyone else's - but it is a great pity that it should come to this, right at the end of an Assembly term, and we are back on a Land (Planning and Environment) Bill. I do not think it is an unfamiliar place for us to be in at the end of a year, particularly, at the end of an Assembly term.

The issue of substance that the Greens' Bill is trying to deal with is the reinstatement of some rights for people to appear before the Supreme Court. Initially, it was dealt with by way of consequential amendments to the AD(JR) Act and by the Land Act itself. It was a quite complex process of rejigging that happened late last year. I would like to say that we are not opposed in principle to what the Greens are attempting to do; but we just do not think that this is the time or the place to do it, despite the fact that I know Ms Horodny is going to move some further amendments later to deal, perhaps, with some of the difficulties that I have elucidated.

The matters with which we are dealing are extremely complex. The matters with which we are dealing are actually in tune with what Stein did want, contrary to some of the claims that are now being made about what happened with the Liberal and Labor alliance - shock, horror! - last year. Stein, in fact, did believe that it was the adjoining residents that had the greatest level of rights to complain, and then there was a further level of complaint that should be allowed in terms of being adversely and substantially affected. We have a great deal of sympathy with the notion that, perhaps, there are some other people who are feeling aggrieved and feel that they have been cut out of the process, although I do not think that the Yarralumla case is a very good example of what is going on in terms of how the Land Act is actually applying. I do not want to get into that debate now, but I think it raises a range of other complexities which, again, I do not think that the Bill before us today offers the right solution to.

Since the Bill was first introduced and the debate was adjourned last week, I have become aware of the fact that the Minister will be putting in further amendments. May I say at this point that they are of a nature that we were much more interested in than the amendments to do with the standing before the Supreme Court. The problem for residents has been: At what point can they register their dissent? At what point can they have their voices heard and at what point will they be reheard? The old rules implied a series of connections between people who registered a complaint and people who then had standing. The new rules under the Land Act amendments that were put through last year have made that a little more difficult. Some of the Minister's definitions -

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