Page 5 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 20 February 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of clause 7 of the bill. The bill also specifically validates the third party appeal exemptions that the government intended to be put in place by the April 2006 amendment regulation. In addition, the bill validates all past regulations purportedly made under sections 282 (1) (e) and (1) (f). This is the effect of clause 8 of the bill. These retrospective provisions are necessary to achieve continuity and certainty in the regulatory environment.
The proceedings relating to the December 2006 decision of the Supreme Court also raised an issue as to whether a third party is able to appeal a decision to grant a development approval under section 275 of the land act instead of section 276. In practice, section 275 is mainly used by applicants for development approval who wish to appeal a refusal or a decision to impose conditions on an approval. However, section 275 is expressed as authorising appeals not just from applicants but from all persons “whose interests are affected by a decision”. The bill therefore amends section 275.
The amendment applies to appeals against decisions to grant an approval subject to conditions. The section as amended authorises such appeals from applicants but not from others. Third parties who wish to appeal such matters may be able to do so as objectors under section 276 of the land act, subject to exemptions that may apply. This amendment is necessary to ensure that exemptions from third party appeal under section 276 cannot be bypassed by action taken under section 275. The amendment, which is also retrospective, in effect helps to clarify how these two appeal provisions work together.
Part 3 of the bill makes a number of related amendments to the regulation under the land act. The amendments also make clear that the relevant provisions are made and validly made under the exemption power of section 282 of the land act. The amendments are also to achieve clarity and consistency of language. These amendments to the regulation are also retrospective. Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Seselja) adjourned to the next sitting.
Chief Minister
Notice of motion of want of confidence
Mr Stefaniak having delivered a notice of motion of want of confidence in the Chief Minister, the Clerk, pursuant to standing order 103, reported the notice as follows:
That this Assembly no longer has confidence in the Chief Minister, Mr Stanhope, MLA, particularly in view of his and his government’s handling of the 2003 bushfires.
Sitting pattern—2007
Motion (by Mr Corbell), by leave, agreed to:
That the resolution of the Assembly of 14 December 2006 be amended by omitting 21 and 22 February 2007 and inserting Wednesday, 28 February 2007.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .