Page 2036 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 400.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (9.38): I move amendment No 19 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2099].
This amendment and amendments Nos 20 and 21 relate to third party appeals and who is eligible to appeal against a decision. I am moving these amendments for the reasons I gave in an earlier speech. The government has moved some way and there have been some improvements in this area but we believe that a hole remains. Essentially, this amendment seeks to plug that hole. Because of the order in which we are dealing with these clauses the description of how these appeals work appears to be going backwards. Amendment No 19 will omit the definition of “eligible entity” and replace it with:
(a) means an entity mentioned in schedule 1, column 4 in relation to the decision; and
(b) includes any entity declared to be an eligible entity for the decision under section 403A.
To explain the rationale for that we are saying that the definition of “material detriment” as it relates to organisations essentially allows any organisation to gain a standing through its terms of reference or its articles of association, which is a matter of concern. Essentially, groups would be set up specifically to have a standing in development applications and development appeals.
That could apply to existing groups that have broad terms of reference, or to groups such as Canberrans for better planning, Canberrans against development, or residents against multi-unit developments. The kinds of groups that could be set up would be mind boggling. It is of concern to me that these kinds of groups could be allowed to stifle and frustrate development for no legitimate purpose.
This could apply in a number of ways. It could apply to existing groups which may have been formed in good faith but which, in my opinion, should not necessarily have standing simply because they have broad terms of reference, because they are anti-development, or because they happen to have terms of reference that apply to a particular development. Another significant area of concern is that commercial competitors could set up all sorts of organisations and use them to challenge developments. I will refer to that issue in subsequent amendments.
Essentially, this is what I have put into the definition of “eligible entity” to ensure that in some circumstances groups can be granted standing by the minister. We do not want ridiculous front groups or groups that oppose every development to be able to get standing as they can under current legislation. By closing that loophole we will enable the minister, if it is seen as being in the public interest and if it is a significant issue of concern, to grant standing.
That does not mean the minister will be able to make a decision about whether or not it is a good or a bad development, although it applies in a similar sort of way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .