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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Tuesday, 25 May 2004) . . Page.. 2150 ..

which is reasonable and good decision-making. As Tim Bonyhady put in his article for the Canberra Times:

A century ago Sydney Harbour was not only set to be mined for coal but the company that had the rights to the coal under the harbour wanted to use the foreshore reserve between Mosman and Cremorne for its operations. Had two members of the public not exercised their statutory rights to object to the company’s acquisition of the foreshore, the mine at Cremorne might well have proceeded. Their action helped to stop it, safeguarding that part of the harbour.

This case is just one of the earliest in a long line of cases in which members of the public have exercised their right to object, appeal and go to the court to protect Australia’s environment. The benefits of their doing so have been enormous. The Great Barrier Reef, Fraser Island and the rainforests of northern New South Wales—all included now on the World Heritage List—are just some of the places protected partly as a result of members of the public exercising their rights in these ways.

The comment in the preamble about popular support for the road misses the point that access to our tribunals and courts should not be dependent on these sorts of assertions.

At many points in this bill, the law is said to apply despite any other law already in force, or to be passed in the future. It is difficult indeed to understand what is intended by the reference to future laws. It should be impossible to restrict what future Assemblies do. It does, I suppose, mean that future laws may need to refer specifically to this clause if the Assembly wishes to move beyond it.

The bill also allows the minister to declare any works to be part of, or related to, the construction of the GDE. If required authorisations for an action have not been applied for or otherwise sought, a person must not bring a court proceeding alleging in substance or in effect that the authorisation has not been given unless the person has given the minister written notice of the allegation at least 14 days before the day the person brings the proceeding. That is from clause 12.

This clause, in particular, seems to me to be at least at risk of upsetting the balance between the judiciary and the executive. If the executive has failed to follow even the laws it has left intact here, surely it must be brought to notice. If an unauthorised activity is taking place, surely even this government would want it to be halted and checked. But no, this government wants 14 days—for what? I am not sure. Perhaps so that the minister can hurry up the work before a court can impose an injunction to check on the legality of the work.

It is extraordinary, as I say. I am not a lawyer, but I wonder whether it is, in fact, allowable to make that sort of law. There is a comment on this issue in the scrutiny of bills committee report. Referring to clause 15, it reads:

By this clause, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1998 does not apply to decisions that would be made under the Gungahlin Drive Extension Authorisation Act 2004.

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