Page 2219 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
However, there are two points to be made here. First, the rules have been developed over many years as a precise expression of the intent of the plan. Second, what other things will be raised as being able to be considered if that limitation is removed? Once again, this broadening will actually introduce another level of uncertainty, another grey area, that will require developers and builders to second-guess what the overall intent of the plan actually is and how it might be applied in their particular case.
Mr Speaker, there are serious concerns from significant players about the consequences of this bill—too many concerns from too many groups. As a result of those concerns and our longstanding principle that we want an effective and efficient planning system that balances the needs of the community to have a say with the need to not have unreasonable delays in the planning system, which are already evident—for all of these reasons, we will not be supporting the bill.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (10.22): I would like to briefly address each of the three issues that this bill addresses.
The first is notification. There are a number of legislative schemes that provide that, where the legislative process has not been followed, an outcome may still be valid. However, these exemptions usually apply only to matters where invalidity would adversely affect the weaker party; where it is out of the decision maker’s hands or the decision maker could not know about it at the time and the likelihood is that it would not materially affect the outcome; or where the costs or practicalities of rectifying that outcome are onerous, unreasonable or simply not practical.
Whilst there are, of course, examples where this is not the case, and we would disagree with the merits of the exemption, for the majority of cases the reasons I listed above apply. Let me give some examples from the ACT to illustrate the point.
The Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Act 2008, section 27, ensures that deficiencies in the insurance policy documents cannot operate to invalidate a compulsory third-party policy. This, of course, protects policyholders and places the onus on insurers, who have a significant advantage in the relationship.
The Wills Act 1968, section 13, provides that where signatories to wills are unaware of the nature of the document they have signed, this does not affect the validity of the will. This makes sense. It is, of course, impossible for the deceased person to rectify the error.
The Electoral Act 1992, section 56, provides that decisions on electoral boundaries made by the commission are not invalidated if there is an error in the process. The waste of public money in holding another election because the process for the decision on the boundary was flawed, as well as the impracticability of doing so, makes it simply unreasonable.
Also, in the Planning and Development Act 2007 itself, section 246 provides that the validity of a lease is not affected where ACTPLA has not complied with the section. In this case, it operates to protect those who have acted in good faith from any error
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video