Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1070 ..
MR MOORE (continuing):
have had building work done would know. Indeed, having done an owner/builder extension to my own house, I know that there are times when you start building something and you find that you need to make a minor modification. The difficulty with this matter is that there is a judgment now about how much impact that would or would not have in terms of the building, but having to go through the processes outlined here would mean that there would be a significant delay and as soon as that occurred the whole project - how you have designed it, when you have people coming in and so forth - would be delayed significantly.
Ms Tucker: But it would be there for the next 30 years.
MR MOORE: Yes, we know that it would be there for the next 30 years, but we have already been through a process whereby we have consulted with the neighbours and they have agreed to something. We are talking about minor amendments, and there is a judgment about what is minor, that - - -
Ms Tucker: Considered behind closed doors.
MR MOORE: Indeed. Ms Tucker, that is why I have said that if this provision is not used properly, I will be happy to review it; but it seems to me that there has been a significant improvement in how PALM has handled this issue. Therefore, I think it is appropriate for us to say, as Mr Osborne has said that we should do, that we will keep monitoring what is going on in this area to see that PALM is ensuring that the changes are minor. Certainly, I have said to the Minister that I am very serious about this matter and that, if he wants the legislation not to have this section in it, he and the department have to ensure that they are talking about just minor amendments, not amendments that have a significant effect, and that remains. I think that it is appropriate to leave the warning said and not to support this clause. That is why it is that I will be opposing this clause.
MR CORBELL (4.44): Speaking to this clause, Mr Moore's argument is not as strong as he makes it out to be. The simple fact is that Ms Tucker has already outlined to this place the levels of appeal that we have seen when open standing has been in place, as it was prior to the amendments of 1997.
Mr Moore: No, that applies to clause 5.
MR CORBELL
: I understand that it relates to clause 5, but the point I am wishing to make is that there we have seen the type of response there has been when people have been given the capacity to have a say. When they have been given the capacity to appeal a decision, we have seen that the impost has not been significant. Let us relate that to what we are being asked to consider here, which is a provision to allow people to appeal against a minor amendment. I think you will see a similar situation to that outlined by Ms Tucker in relation to clause 5. You will see a small number of people appealing against minor amendments. In most instances, people will be prepared to accept that the minor amendments are entirely reasonable; but there may be, probably will be, situations where those changes, whilst technically minor amendments, could be seen to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .