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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4773 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Section 222 provides definitions for Part VI - Approvals and Orders - of the Act. Section 222 currently defines "relevant authority" in such a way that the Commissioner for Land and Planning is excluded where an application has been referred "voluntarily" by the Minister's delegate under subsection 229A(4). The definition of "relevant authority" is being amended to recognise that an application can be referred to the commissioner under both subsections 229A(3) and 229A(4).

Turning to proposed new clause 3B, section 237 of the Act provides that any person affected by the approval of a decision may object to the grant of an approval. This section is to be amended to include a definition of "person". This will provide for organisations such as residents associations to be included in the definition of "person", and seeks to clarify an organisation's standing if a decision is appealed to the AAT.

Mr Speaker, I have already commented on clause 4 of the Bill and the support that the Government will give it. I also commented at length, on the last occasion, on the other dangers and weaknesses we see in the proposal put forward by Ms Horodny. The speaking notes I have circulated contain some references to those issues. I draw them to the attention of members, but I will not read them into the
record today.

Mr Speaker, I will take up Ms Horodny's invitation to respond to the comments of Mr Mossop. I have advice on that subject, which is not with me at the moment; but I will attempt to table it, if not before the end of today, by tomorrow, so that members can see what arguments are being put in response to Mr Mossop, who, I understand is no longer with the Environmental Defender's Office. I commend the amendments to the Assembly.

MR MOORE (5.15): Mr Speaker, I missed my opportunity to speak in the in-principle stage and I would like to use this opportunity, since we are debating the Bill as a whole, to make the point that I fully support the legislation put up by Ms Horodny and I support the notion, primarily, of expanding standing to ensure that it is as wide as possible. I think Ms Horodny has put a positive approach to this Assembly. It is interesting, Mr Speaker, how regularly I am getting approaches at the moment from people who feel the frustration of not being able to appeal against a decision that has been made with reference to a development. Often it is a situation where the developer would have been able to appeal but the person directly affected is not able to appeal.

This attempt by Ms Horodny is just one part of the correction that I believe needs to be made. I understand that, when it comes to open standing, it appears not to be the will of the Assembly that we proceed on that, but rather that we get a modified view through the amendments put. It seems to me that the legislation, in its original form, is entirely appropriate. At least, with the amendments we will still get some progress in what we need to achieve.

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