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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4768 ..

LAND (PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

Debate resumed.

MS HORODNY: The Stein report continues:

The courts' power to prevent abuse of its processes and to exclude vexatious litigants has ensured that only meritorious cases are pursued. Other States have followed suit -

that is, followed New South Wales. South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania all have open standing in planning legislation. The report continues:

Open standing provisions are not to be feared but should be welcomed as an aid to enforcement. They have the capacity to ensure that administrators carry out their duties.

I would also like to read out some advice given on this issue by the Environmental Defender's Office. This is information that was sent to all members of the Assembly in January of this year.

Ms McRae: It is wrong.

Mr Humphries: It is wrong, yes. The advice is bad advice. It is not right.

Ms McRae: We all got it. You do not have to read it. It is wrong.

MS HORODNY: Nonetheless, I would like to put on the record what Mr Mossop of the EDO had to say on this issue. He said:

Prior to the amendments to the ADJR Act by Amendment Act No 4 any person who believed a decision under the ... Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 ... or the Heritage Objects Act 1991 to be contrary to law was entitled to bring an application for judicial review under the ADJR Act. That put applicants in relation to such decisions in a special position because the generally applicable test was that the person must be a "person aggrieved" by a decision in order to be able to seek judicial review. This recognises the fact that most decisions under the ... Land Act and the Heritage Objects Act involve significant public interests and the traditional tests for standing, which were developed in a private law context, were not appropriate in such situations.

Section 87 of the Amendment Act No 4 removed this liberalised test for standing under the ADJR Act. Therefore any person or organisation will now have to satisfy the requirement that they be a "person aggrieved" in order to challenge the lawfulness of a decision under the Land Act or Heritage Objects Act.

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