Page 1097 - Week 03 - Thursday, 18 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.22): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1162].
As I flagged in my comments earlier in the discussion, the Greens are moving this amendment because we believe that the proposed amendments to the operation of the tribunal, ACAT, are substantive changes to its operation and we believe that those changes should be brought forward as a substantive bill rather than some attempt to sneak them though as part of a JACS omnibus bill which, as we have discussed already, is, by design, for minor and technical amendments.
I think Mr Hargreaves’s extensive speech justifying those amendments and the comments that he made around them highlight the policy substance contained in those changes. And while I am speaking of Mr Hargreaves, I would like to congratulate him on his proud legacy of a slab of bitumen where there used to be a woodland. I am sure his grandchildren will be proud of his efforts.
Mr Stanhope noted that these changes actually restore the status quo. I would beg the question, as I noted in my earlier comments: why is the status quo being restored only for planning decisions and not for other decisions? I think this again highlights that this is a policy change that should have had broader consideration.
We now have a situation where ACAT has been in operation for 12 months or a little over 12 months. Given some of the anecdotal concerns around ACAT, it would be fitting to have a one-year review perhaps of the operation of ACAT. And then if it turns out that changes need to be made, adjustments need to be made—and I think that would not be unreasonable for the operation of a new part of our legal system—then let us do that as a substantive set of changes.
Let us have an opportunity for community input and not just the input of the property development community, as seems to be the case with the amendment that is being put forward today. Let us actually go out there and say, “Okay, we need to sort out a few glitches with the operation of the tribunal.” That is not an unreasonable thing to do.
So that is why I have put this amendment forward. There is a debate to be had about these amendments. That should be had on another day. I will comment not on the substance of those but simply on the principle that we should be doing this as a proper discussion about the operation of the tribunal.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.25): The Liberal opposition will not be supporting Mr Rattenbury’s amendment. Although I am sympathetic to the notion and the issues that Mr Rattenbury raised in relation to the substantive nature of the amendments—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video