Page 307 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In light of this, I am pleased to advise the Assembly that the government is happy to support the amendment which has been foreshadowed by Mrs Dunne, which will amend this regulation to remove the cultural precinct—that is, section 49—from the relevant map in the instrument. This will mean that third-party ACAT merit review will once again be available for matters in the cultural precinct. I think this is a reasonable and sensible compromise, and one that the government is pleased to support.
This regulation does not affect the right of the local community to comment on specific development applications. This is a significant right which remains unaffected. The regulation does not affect the rights of parties to seek review of questions of law before the Supreme Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Recent applications to the Supreme Court attest to the continued availability of this facility.
Some might contend that the regulation will do little to reduce time lost in legal disputes, given the ability of parties to take matters to the Supreme Court. The government does not agree. The ACAT merit review process and Supreme Court appeals are different processes applying to different questions. The types of matters that can be taken to the Supreme Court are limited.
The ACAT merit review process focuses on a full review of the planning merits of a decision. The ACAT is given the power to stand in the shoes of the ACT Planning and Land Authority and has powers similar to the authority to make or remake a decision of the authority. In contrast, proceedings before the Supreme Court are restricted to questions of law and due process. Supreme Court applications are also subject to potentially much higher costs for parties compared to the ACAT proceedings. In other words, the ACAT plays a different role from the Supreme Court, and removal of ACAT third-party merit review processes is therefore a significant measure.
The argument that the regulation on ACAT merit review is not worth while because it does not remove the prospect of further protracted legal proceedings in another forum is a defeatist one. It is an argument to the effect that a measure of improvement is not worth having because the improvement is in some way limited.
There are compelling precedents for this regulation. As I mentioned, the government made regulations in 2006 to remove third-party ACAT merit review processes for land in the city centre and town centres as well as industrial areas. The 2006 regulation is now widely understood, and accepted and supported by the community and industry.
The significance of the Kingston foreshore is such that it should be subject to the same review framework as the city centre and town centres. The Kingston foreshore has a number of features in common with the city centre, in particular, and as such should be subject to similar processes. For example, like the city centre, the Kingston foreshore is central to the commercial and cultural life of the city. It has high land values and is subject to ongoing development and change. Residents who move to the Kingston foreshore or the city understand and accept that these are areas of continuing
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video