Page 2041 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (9.58): I move amendment No 119 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 2065].
This amendment, which will insert a new clause 407A, is to clarify that the Planning and Land Authority, or an official, is not prevented from taking compliance action under chapters 11 and 12, simply because a development approval certificate of compliance or a certificate of occupancy under the Building Act 2004 has been issued in connection with the matter.
Proposed new clause 407A agreed to.
Clauses 408 to 410, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 411.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (10.00): I move amendment No 21 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2099].
This completes the three amendments I am moving in relation to third-party appeals. It omits the definition of material detriment and replaces it with a new definition. The opposition is moving this amendment—I touched on it before but I restate it—because the way the government has it at the moment will still allow an abuse of the AAT review process. It will allow a large number of groups, for virtually any reason, to be able to appeal against decisions. This has a real impact upon the cost of housing, the cost of developments. These kinds of delays can cost a significant amount of money to those looking to develop land. That is our concern. It has been our concern for some time.
I am sure Mr Barr gets approached—I certainly get significant numbers of people in the industry—by people who get, often unreasonably, delayed by what are often, but not always, quite spurious appeals. We remember the late Mac Dickins, who would appeal against virtually everything that went on in Turner. I cannot be sure but I think Mr Smyth may well have had to call in some developments as a result of Mac Dickins. It certainly led to the call-in power being used a lot more.
It is a concern to us that there could be these kinds of appeals. It is very broad. It seems to go against what the government is trying to do in relation to third-party appeals, which is to more narrowly define them. You could drive a truck through this. I think any commercial operator could essentially frustrate a competitor through this clause, whether it be by a month, two months or six months. It can be in the interests of certain commercial competitors to do that. The way the government has it drafted at the moment is not good enough. It will leave a big hole. We have sought to plug that hole as best as possible.
It is clear that the government will not support these amendments. The government should look very closely at how these work once this commences. They should be prepared to look at these clauses again if there are these kinds of appeals. There is a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .