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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 9 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 2638 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I would like to outline what Justice Stein said in his report into the administration of ACT leasehold. He and his colleagues made the recommendation that open standing in the Supreme Court should be available to any person. It is important to understand what rights we are actually putting in place here. The rights we are putting in place are an appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law - not on a planning approval, not on the usual range of comments and objections which are sought in relation to development applications. We are seeking to restore a right to appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law only. On page 313 of the Stein report, Justice Stein and his colleagues outlined what they believe should be a typical enforcement process for a breach of a lease or of the Land Act. They state as their final dot point:

appeal to Supreme Court on question of law only, otherwise the decision of AAT is final.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that is quite clear. What it says is that, in the normal scope of events, the appeals process that we currently have in place remains. Immediate neighbours to a development are notified. They have the opportunity to object. A decision is made by the Commissioner for Land and Planning. If necessary, that decision can be appealed in the AAT. But, if a citizen, a community group, a residents group or a developer - or, indeed, any other interested individual - believes that there is a question of law that needs to be addressed, it can be appealed through the Supreme Court. It is a simple process, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, and it is a process - - -

Mr Humphries: Going to the Supreme Court is a simple process? It is the first time I have ever heard that said.

Mr Smyth: You cannot afford the fees, but it is a simple process!

Mr Humphries: That is right, yes.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Corbell has the call.

MR CORBELL: It is a process which we believe is appropriate in a democratic society. Unlike those opposite, we do not believe that there is an enormous amount to fear. In fact, the opportunity for citizens to participate in the process and to appeal a decision of a government agency or authority when they believe that the law has been incorrectly interpreted is, I believe, an important watchdog role that should be available to individuals.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a sensible Bill. In closing, I would just like to pick up on some comments of my leader, Mr Stanhope, when he indicated that we were very much aware of the concerns, particularly in the development industry, about how this provision could be abused. I think Mr Moore, in his comments earlier, outlined quite sensibly the case put forward by the Government about frivolous arguments from individuals. Indeed, the history of open standing in other jurisdictions, as well as in the Territory, overwhelmingly shows that people know that they have to have a substantial claim to go to the Supreme Court on an appeal on open standing.

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