Page 112 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 28 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
problem with its being delayed by a matter of a couple of weeks. That would allow us to look at it more closely and the minister to take another look at it and actually look at some of these issues which the committee has raised which may well lead to further court action down the track and may well see it go to higher courts.
I do not know whether that will happen, but these issues certainly have been raised and no doubt the lawyers of the relevant parties will look at them. There are some significant issues here. We have raised them and the committee has raised them. I do not support retrospective legislation which impacts adversely on people’s rights. That is what this bill is doing. That is why we cannot support this bill in its current form and that is why I will be moving the amendments which have been circulated in my name.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (6.02): With this legislation the government is shifting the goalposts. It says it has to push this amendment through today because there have been lots of developments approved in the period since the invalid amendment was passed and they may become subject to unmeritorious appeals, but where are those appeals that have required us to fast-track this amendment?
At the moment the law is that affected third parties can lodge appeals on developments within town centres and industrial areas. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that not one appeal has been received. Do any of us really believe that leaving this legislation for another week would make such a big difference?
The haste with which this amendment is being driven through the house is not driven by the government’s desire to ensure certainty for all the developments that have taken place since this legislation was passed. Rather, the government cannot believe its luck at being let off the hook by the Auditor-General over the EpiCentre fiasco and it is terrified that it will be caught out if the Snow appeal goes through to the AAT, which I understand is scheduled for later this week.
I did observe that the minister was beaming when he heard the news about the auditor’s report, but the auditor was not examining whether the development approval process was in conformance with administrative law. It looks like the government’s good fortune is about to be punctured by finally having an independent arbiter look at the sale process itself.
Students of cynicism 101 should note the enthusiasm with which oppositions, especially opposition Labor parties, espouse comments such as community consultation, freedom of information, merit review and public donation disclosures, to name just a few of the core elements of a healthy democratic government. They should also note the enthusiasm with which those same parties, once they gain power, back away from and water down such provisions.
Things like merit review become irksome and make public servants look bad. They also make them look good when their decisions are affirmed. But bad news carries more political weight than good news, so, of course, public servants advise minister to repeal the rights of what they perceive as irksome troublemakers to interfere and challenge their authority.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .