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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4774 ..

MS McRAE (5.17): Mr Speaker, we will be supporting the Government's amendments. I would just like to put on record why we are not supporting Ms Horodny's Bill. I will read from the Government's advice, because this is what I am working from as well. It reads:

Ms Horodny's Bill does not address the existing provisions in the Land Act relating to the Supreme Court. Section 261 provides that any person can apply to the Supreme Court for an injunction restraining the breach of an order made by the Minister under section 256.

Any person may bring proceedings in the Supreme Court for an order to remedy or restrain a breach of the Act, whether or not any right of that person has been or may be infringed by, or as a consequence of that breach.

A review of the granting of a lease, license or approval would be subject to the standing provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1989 but not the Land Act.

Ms Horodny claims to implement the recommendation of the Stein Inquiry that there be a civil enforcement provision with open standing in the Act. This is misleading as it appears that this Bill is a reaction to the amendment to the ADJR Act that was a consequence of the major amendments to the Land Act in response to the Stein Inquiry. The ADJR Act was amended to remove the requirement that a person did not have to establish that he/she was an aggrieved person in seeking to have a statement of reasons provided under section 13 of the ADJR Act. This amendment maintains the equity in that the Land Act does not have a less onerous test for standing than other ACT legislation.

I do not believe we are doing anybody any harm. It continues:

Ms Horodny's Bill does not address the changes to the ADJR Act. It now extends to the Land Act powers of the Supreme Court in making orders in respect of any breach of the Act, a lease, a license or an approval with no requirement to establish standing.

The Bill appears to provide not only for the court to consider the legality of certain actions, but also to review the merits of administrative decisions. Is this not the role of the AAT?

They are just some of the complexities of what is before us which were addressed at the round table conference earlier in the year and which I left believing that the Greens would go back and amend. All we have had is the same doled up to us. I do not think that the issues that have been raised by the Minister have been dealt with. However, the Minister's amendments do significantly amend the standing of people and take away some of the immediate problems that have arisen in interpretation as to who a person is that has

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