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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1852 ..

government response has not been circulated, as I said, with any real time for us to assess it. As most members are aware, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee relies to a great extent on the expert advice of its part time legal adviser. However, the government response is pretty light on. If this is the letter, it boils down to the minister saying that there was no intention to interfere with judicial power.

The Conservation Council of the South East Region and Canberra (Inc) has written to all members today about these regulations and other measures to try to avoid scrutiny through other environment laws. The letter states:

Dear MLA

We would also like to draw your attention to the ALP’s party policy which states a commitment to open and accountable planning including retaining third party appeal rights for residents. The policy states: “Labor believes third party appeals are a necessary part of the planning system. Individuals immediately affected by a planning proposal will have the right to have a development application reviewed if they believe it is contrary to Labor’s Suburb Master Plans or relevant provisions of the ACT Code for Residential Development …

Third party appeals rights are an important part of good governance. The Conservation Council supports third party rights as a key part of good environment and planning legislation. Third party rights provisions under existing ACT planning and environment legislation are already inadequate. Proposals to grant exemptions to override these limited rights set an extremely worrying precedent.

The term third party appeals provides the right of individuals to challenge particular decisions made under legislation. It also provides scope for individuals to address activities that may be taking place in breach of law. …

Third party appeals processes—where in place—have not opened a floodgate of litigation and their existence and occasional use have value in ensuring compliance with environmental laws and in testing environmental best practice. Such provisions need to allow open standing, the issue of costs not be a prohibitive barrier and consideration of the public interest benefits.

Additionally this accords with the view of the Australian Law Reform Commission that standing be open to any person with a court having discretion to limit the action and that criteria be developed to guide issues re the costs of legal action. The High Court Oshlack is another case which highlights some key directions in public interest litigation. …

Interestingly, the prior to the recent changes the Land Act Regulations referred to section 229(7)(a)—

That is a more technical comment, which I do not think I will read. In excluding this work from scrutiny, the government is saying that it is absolutely above scrutiny, that all its decisions on this work do not need the assurance of possible checks by the judiciary. By agreeing to these regulations, the Assembly is saying that it agrees with the government. If there are gaps in the information, it is surely essential that this information be brought to bear on the work. Even if you assume that the road is going ahead, there is still great value in making sure that the works plans are intended, I understand, to ensure that the construction of the road is done as sensitively as possible.

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