Page 2044 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clearly she has not read it. The drink-driving example is quite ridiculous. The idea that the right to appeal anything and everything is the same as the right to drive a car on the road does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny.
Dr Foskey talked about bogus groups. It is not just bogus groups; it is groups who, as I said in my earlier discussion, for whatever reason, even with good intent perhaps, are simply anti development and will seek to appeal against anything. As I say, Mac Dickins may well have been well-intentioned. But he caused a lot of frustration to many people. It is not just about bogus groups. There are a number of areas.
Dr Foskey talked about putting forward more elegant solutions. I find that quite extraordinary, given the number of clauses that Dr Foskey has got up and talked about. Without having anything to offer—amendments or otherwise—she is happy to occasionally say she does not like something. But Dr Foskey has offered about zero solutions.
Mr Barr: One.
MR SESELJA: One, Mr Barr tells me. But I think that was done very late. Nonetheless, I thank members for their contribution. I repeat: because of the way this has been drafted, there will be some issues for the government, for the development community and for first homebuyers as a result. It will lead to more delays than we need to see. I do not buy the argument that any group, simply because it is interested in it, has some sort of right to essentially—with no prospect of financial loss—be able to significantly hold things up.
I have never heard someone put to me a rational argument as to why that is an inherent right. It is legitimate for us to restrict that. Where people’s enjoyment of their land is affected, we should be preventing it. In fact, this bill goes further than that and allows people whose enjoyment of public land is affected to have standing. There are protections.
I make one other point. It is interesting that the former planning minister has moved a long way on this. He used to believe that you should be able to have third-party appeals for any reason. He has moved some way since then and believes—since being in this place for some time and since becoming minister—that we should set broad frameworks in legislation and in the territory plan, and that we should debate the merits of many of these things ahead of time. That is why we have these rules. That is why we have these criteria. Often with these appeals they simply go over issues—debate policy and the merits—which have already been settled. There are reasons for restricting this. The government does not have the balance right. That is why we have moved these amendments.
Question put:
That the amendment be agreed to.
The Assembly voted—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .