Page 3465 - Week 11 - Thursday, 19 September 2013

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

waste of time. I will not stoop to his level. I will continue to assess the merits of the matters brought forward by the Liberal Party each Wednesday and continue to try and find ways forward to seek common ground and get things done for the benefit of the community.

I commend my bill to the Assembly.

Question put:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 1	Noes 14
Mr Rattenbury	Mr Barr	Mr Gentleman
	Ms Berry	Mr Hanson
	Ms Burch	Mrs Jones
	Mr Coe	Ms Lawder
	Mr Corbell	Ms Porter
	Mrs Dunne	Mr Smyth
	Ms Gallagher	Mr Wall

Question so resolved in the negative.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill 2013

Debate resumed from 16 May 2013, on motion by Mr Rattenbury:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (11.47): The government will be supporting Mr Rattenbury’s Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Amendment Bill, but proposes a number of targeted amendments to ensure that the right of review is not abused by the new, larger class of potential litigants this bill creates.

The bill will revise the standing requirements under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 by removing the concept of a “person aggrieved” and significantly reducing the current limitation on who can make an application for judicial review of an administrative decision. The bill provides that any person may make an application for review subject to two limitations. A person will not have standing for review if the law under which the decision was made expressly prevents the person from making the application for review, or review of the application may adversely affect an individual whose interests are affected by the decision and the application does not raise a significant issue of public importance.

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