Page 1098 - Week 03 - Thursday, 18 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
and it was something that flickered through my mind as to whether or not one should oppose these things, whether or not we should oppose the bill as a whole because of the substantive nature of some of the amendments—the amendments that are proposed in this case, while substantive, do re-establish the status quo.
Without checking the Hansard, I do not know whether at the time of the debate I mentioned in this place, but I certainly did discuss with people, the implications of the double-barrelled appeal process in relation to the planning laws and the impact that would have. And I did predict that it would have an undesirable effect. I do not know whether I did predict it in this place.
While I take on board Mr Rattenbury’s views about this being a substantive piece of legislation and it should have been in a standalone piece of legislation—and we will get to that issue later in the day if I have leave to move my motion which is on the program for today—I think that the amendments that relate to planning laws are important, necessary and, in many ways, urgent.
At the moment the current structure of ACAT means that there are substantial delays, that ACAT is not capable of complying with the law in relation to solving planning matters within three months. There are substantial delays in ACAT on a number of matters which are costing builders and developers around this town substantial amounts of money, which means that ordinary Canberrans will face substantial increases in the cost of their dwellings as a result.
While I am sympathetic to Mr Rattenbury’s proposal, I think that there is a certain level of urgency. It is a result of, I think, poor policy in relation to the development of ACAT. I do agree with Mr Rattenbury that we should question whether or not it is necessary to have the double-barrelled appeal process in relation to all of the other matters in ACAT. I think that that should be a matter of significant public discussion.
I also agree with Mr Rattenbury that after a year’s operation of ACAT it may be time for a review, because, anecdotally—and the representations that I receive especially in relation to small claims matters—there have been considerable problems. Some of them have been addressed but there are still outstanding problems. I concur with Mr Rattenbury’s sentiments in that regard.
However, because of what my colleagues and I perceive to be the urgency of dealing with these matters in relation to the appeal mechanisms in the planning process, to enable the planning laws to be complied with so that ACAT can deal with these matters in a three-month time frame, I think it is most important that we pass these amendments today.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Land and Property Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (11.29): I have to say that I agree substantially with all that Mrs Dunne had to say.
Mrs Dunne: Again! Gee, scary!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video