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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 9 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 2635 ..

Mr Stanhope: You know what I am saying.

MR HUMPHRIES: I know what you are saying. I also know what you and your colleagues were saying this time two years ago when the same provision came forward. You were joining in these arguments that it was dangerous to allow anybody who anointed themselves as a planning expert to hold up planning processes by bringing actions in the Supreme Court. I would respectfully suggest that you go back and consider your views then. I think we will see people emerging in particular debates who have no particular standing.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, in matters of other descriptions in the ACT, such as an action for defamation or an action for recovery of money or an action for personal injuries or any other kind of action, we do not see people standing merely on the basis that they believe they have a right to defend some principle of the law or the legal system or of the planning process or some other matter of public policy such as to be able to intervene into matters and hold up proceedings and occasion other parties considerable cost. Why should it be different in these matters? Why are we saying in planning matters that anybody, without any connection with a matter, ought to be able to appear in a court and hold up proceedings? I cannot see the argument for it. I have not heard the argument in this debate.

Let me make two other points in this debate and then I will sit down. First of all, there is the argument about who it is that will use these provisions. Certainly some people who, as I have said, anoint themselves as planning experts will take advantage of these provisions. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. I can name the sort of person who would be in the courts holding up important developments on the basis of these amendments. The more significant parties, I think, who will use these provisions are not, if you like, well-meaning members of the community who have an interest in the integrity of the planning system. No, no. Rather, it will be other commercial interests who will use these provisions. It will be rivals in particular activities who will use these provisions.

In the case where someone wants to develop a club in the ACT, rival clubs are quite likely to come forward and use these open standing provisions, even if they are quite some distance away, to prevent or at least hold up the application being made by a particular club. Where is the advantage in that? Why should the rival club not have to show direct substantial effect before they get into the court and start to hold up the planning process? I can well see why the proposal to develop local shops in the ACT might be opposed by rival shopkeepers in other parts of the Territory, on the basis that any shops anywhere that are redeveloped represent some loss of business to those particular operations. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, the examples are very numerous, and I would ask members to consider the sorts of issues where they could arise.

Finally, I want to touch on this question of a trial. The Labor Party is changing its mind; it is doing a backflip, whatever you want to say. It has now decided that it wants to support these provisions which it has previously opposed. Mr Stanhope tells the Assembly that he is willing to operate a trial and, if the trial demonstrates that people are abusing the system, then the Labor Party will consider going back on what it has already proposed to do today.

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