Page 3474 - Week 11 - Thursday, 19 September 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This bill seeks to make the ACT a leading jurisdiction in this space. It will demonstrate that the Assembly is prepared to make reforms we know are the right thing to do; reforms that are supported by the evidence and based on considered reasoning and not irrational fear or apprehension. I have no doubt that, over time, other jurisdictions will follow our lead and there will come a time when people have to ask what the fuss was about, just as is the case in New South Wales in relation to their planning scheme. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
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) (12.17), by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 3540], and I table the following paper:
Supplementary explanatory statement to the Government amendments.
The government is making these amendments to address a range of issues I outlined in the in-principle debate. The government’s amendments under this section focus on two areas which require amendment to ensure the bill is responsible, balanced and effective. The government proposes amendments that specify that all decisions under the Planning and Development Act 2007 and the Heritage Act 2004 continue to be subject to the person aggrieved test to establish standing for review of decision or request reasons for a decision. This is a well-settled area of the law. Complicating the processes for planning and heritage matters with unnecessary change will serve no public purpose.
This amendment responds to stakeholder concerns about the threat to planning, development and heritage laws and removes the risk that planning and land processes will be subject to frivolous or vexatious proceedings aimed to delay or frustrate legitimate or lawful action. This amendment will ensure stability and certainty in the ACT’s building industry and the broader business community. It will preserve the status quo for proceedings under these laws. A person will be able to seek administrative review only if they have a demonstrated and legitimate interest in a decision made under those laws.
Mr Rattenbury’s bill proposes an extremely high threshold restricting the right to request a review. Under the bill as originally proposed, a person will only be ineligible to apply for a review if the interests of the person applying for review are not adversely affected by the decision and the decision is about an individual and the application fails to raise a significant issue of public importance. The government is concerned this threshold may fail to achieve its longer term objectives. Instead of this test, the government proposes a simpler test for exclusion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video