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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1072 ..

MS TUCKER (4.49): Mr Moore has just introduced the element of vexatious claims. I think I just need to repeat what I have already said. There is obviously a mechanism in the AAT to deal with those matters and they are dealt with pretty quickly. The real argument from Mr Moore seems to be about what is minor. My whole argument is that what is minor to one person may be quite major to somebody else and that the process is conducted behind closed doors. It is perfectly reasonable for the neighbour to know what PALM considers to be a minor amendment and to have the opportunity to object if they are concerned about the impact on their residence or block as a result of that so-called minor amendment. The example I have given - I have already gone through it, so I will not repeat it - shows that, clearly, that has happened. This is just about making the process open. It is highly unlikely that we would have a flood of appeals over it. People are reasonable and there are mechanisms to deal with vexatious complaints.

MR CORBELL (4.51): Mr Speaker, I wish to respond to some of the comments made by Mr Moore. He presents two arguments. The first argument he presents is that the application has already been approved and the change is only minor. Yes, the application has been approved, but it was approved on the basis that the minor change was not in it; so you are introducing a new element to what is being approved. Once that occurs, the question is open as to whether the impact is significant. As Ms Tucker says, we are really arguing for the neighbour who feels that it will have a significant impact on their amenity to have the right to appeal against it, to have the right to object to it and to have the issue resolved by an independent decision-maker.

That brings me to the other point Mr Moore made, which was that it takes time. Yes, it may take time, but we have to look at comparative lengths of time. It may take time to get the appeal resolved, but the alternative in the current situation is that it just occurs and the neighbour lives with it for a lengthy period or sells. That is the choice that we are being presented with here. I think it is unreasonable to use the time argument, firstly, when you compare it with the consequences of the current situation whereby a neighbour just has to put up with it or leave the house. Secondly, if there is a problem with the processing of appeals, the way to address that is to better resource the appeals process, not to deny people the right to appeal.

MS TUCKER (4.52): I want to clarify something I just said. After I said it I thought, "No, we are talking about the minor amendments here". Obviously, these appeals would not be going to the AAT. We did not go that far in this legislation. There would just be an objection going back to PALM. All that this provision is doing is making the situation more open when there are minor amendments. Literally, that is all it is doing. It is still leaving the matter with PALM. It is just opening up the process so that there is an opportunity to express a concern if a so-called minor amendment does not seem to be minor to the person living next door or wherever.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (4.53): I will finish with one point. Ms Tucker says that an objection would not lead to the AAT, but it could. An objection must go to the commissioner. That decision is appealable to the AAT and ultimately could end up in the Supreme Court.

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