Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1067 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
trying to assess development applications that need more detailed consideration. It is not an either/or choice, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. The Government should not present it to this Assembly as an either/or choice. It should accept that, if the Assembly makes a decision on how appeals should be handled, it has to make sure that that system works effectively and efficiently. That is why it is in government and that is why we have the role of determining the policy direction through legislation.
As Mr Moore pointed out, vexatious complaints can be dealt with in a number of ways and there is a capacity for various tribunals and other decision-makers to rule out appeals on the ground that they are vexatious, but I do not think that we will see an enormous number of them. I really do not accept that. I think that most people take a sensible approach to the planning debate and are prepared to contribute and to give and take in discussions on development applications and, for that matter, other planning issues. There are always people who are going to take a less consultative approach, a less negotiated approach, but the response to that approach is not to say that we will not allow them to participate in the appeals process. The response to that is to say that we will have independent decision-makers determine whether they have a valid case. The way to address the appeals process is to have independent decision-makers. This legislation is a small but important step in returning to the community its capacity to have a direct say in the form and structure of the city in which we live. For that reason, the Labor Party will be supporting it today.
MS TUCKER (4.33), in reply: I wish to respond to a few of the points made by Mr Humphries to begin with. First of all, he has rejected our amendments - - -
Mr Moore: Do you mean Mr Smyth?
MS TUCKER: I am sorry, Mr Smyth. Mr Humphries has spoken about this matter and I wish to quote him. That is probably why I said his name. Mr Humphries did speak about the minor amendments when he was the Minister responsible for PALM. He acknowledged in the Assembly that the issue concerning minor amendments had not been handled well by PALM. He said:
... it was unwise of PALM to amend the original approval without going back and talking to the original objectors. It was apparently within the power of PALM to make the decision, but it was, I think, unwise to make the decision without having consulted with those who were clearly stakeholders in this matter by virtue of their objection to the original building height for the proposed structure. I have indicated to PALM that this should not recur...
Our legislation is attempting to ensure that it does not recur. Mr Smyth says that approval has been given and the amendments are only minor; therefore, there is no point to it. We are putting up this Bill because it is clear that there is a point to it. It is because some minor amendments have had a significant impact on neighbours. Huge discretion resides in PALM and the process is closed. The fact that it is closed and secret is of concern to the community as it can see that the discretion exercised by PALM in this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .