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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1064 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

On the one hand, we all want to be able to say that it is time for us to redevelop our house by putting on an extension or doing something to that effect and we want to have a nice, efficient way of dealing with the bureaucracy. On the other, we want to be able to say that it is reasonable for people to be able to appeal. I have to say that one of the things that have been particularly effective in improving our planning system is the appointment of the Commissioner for Planning. I think that that has had a major impact on seeing the system as having a fair arbiter, particularly because he is from New South Wales.

Mr Corbell: It shows what you can achieve with independence.

MR MOORE: And he has an element of independence, as Mr Corbell says. He may well be even more independent shortly. In making a choice between those balances, I have decided to support the Bill in principle, but I must say that I will have some difficulty in supporting clause 4, which is headed "Minor amendments". I will speak about those first. We are speaking now about a position where a development proposal has been considered, people have had the right to object, the development proposal has been approved and the person doing the building has found need for an amendment on some minor issue - the positioning of a window, a slight variation to the roof line or something like that. In the vast majority of cases, those changes have been handled successfully. I am aware of some cases where they have been handled poorly by PALM, but not many. In making my comments here, I would like to say that if there were a growth in the number of such approvals that were inappropriate, I would be happy to reconsider my position on this matter. But at this stage, considering the efforts and improvements made by PALM, I am prepared to oppose this part of the legislation. That is where I have fallen down the line on this one.

I have fallen down the opposite side of the line on the second part of Ms Tucker's legislation - that is, the review process - but exactly the same thing applies. In this case the onus of responsibility will not be with PALM; the onus of responsibility will be with community members generally, ordinary citizens. Mr Smyth claims that there will be a number of vexatious claims. I do not think that there will be, but if there were to be an increase in the number of vexatious claims I would be prepared to reconsider that as well. Interestingly enough, they will not be just from community groups and citizens. In fact, as I see it, the vexatious claims are more likely to be from one developer trying to restrict the development opportunities of another developer. They are the ones that I have seen more commonly. They are the ones that I am much more nervous about because those claims really are vexatious.

I think it is worth keeping in mind that the AAT retains the power to dismiss vexatious objections. You still have to get them through to the AAT and, with the legislation in its current form, it is less likely that such vexatious issues will come forward because it is quite clear that they will be dismissed fairly easily. I am saying that I am prepared to support this part of the legislation but, once again, I will be keeping an eye on that. If there is an increase in the number of vexatious objections, objections of the sort that Mr Smyth is concerned about, I will be ready to take a different view from the one I have had for the last 10 or 12 years and say that this simply is not necessary. I say that

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