Page 2045 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (10.20): I move amendment No 1 on the yellow sheet circulated in my name [see schedule 4 at page 2103].

This amendment relates to material detriment, which we have just been discussing. This would prevent groups—after a decision is made in relation to a development—from being formed or altering their objects specifically to get standing. This is a reasonable amendment. It would simply prevent bogus claims—particularly by commercial competitors—being set up specifically for a development in order to gain standing. I do not think it is reasonable—I know Dr Foskey has already said that she thinks it is reasonable—to be able to form a group or change your objects simply to get standing for an appeal. We think this is an eminently reasonable amendment and that it should be supported.

MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.21): The government will not be supporting this amendment. Clause 411 allows community groups or organisations to make an appeal in the AAT if a decision to grant a development approval is relevant to the objects or purposes of the organisation. In this, the provision is essentially a continuation of the existing law. The ability for such community groups to appeal has not proved to be problematic to date.

Mr Seselja’s amendment will have the effect of requiring community groups and other organisations to be in existence before a decision on a development approval is given, and for those organisations to have objects or purposes relating to that development approval also before the development approval is given. Such an amendment, if agreed, would impact adversely on groups of neighbours who might want to band together to challenge development approval and legitimately choose to form themselves into a small corporate structure. Such groups may challenge a decision and form themselves into an organisation only after the decision is made on the development approval.

Whilst the operation of this provision will be monitored to exclude the ability of groups or organisations to appeal in circumstances where third-party appeal rights exist it would be an unreasonable restriction on the right of people to form associations for a variety of purposes. It is also important to keep in mind that not all decisions to grant development approval are subject to third-party appeal at the AAT. Such third-party appeals can be exercised only where there is an opportunity to do so; for example, certain matters in the merit or impact tracks within the new assessment processes.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .