Will you be making a submission?

What a terrible proposal.

As much as I’d love to challenge a minister’s determinations regarding all manner of things, this will do nothing but clog up courts with vexatious action and remove certainty.

Ministers should be accountable to the people via the parliament.

Well, this will certainly result in less politically motivated activists like Shane wasting ACT taxpayers’ money in court.

“Currently the ability to bring an action for judicial review is limited to ‘persons aggrieved’ by a decision. This Bill will introduce open standing and make all decisions subject to the ADJR Act open to judicial review by anyone, except where it would unreasonably infringe on a person’s private rights to deal with the matter, as recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission.”

re: nutters.

Surely the Australian Law Reform Commission has considered this possibility in making their recommendation?

The ALRC is not completely averse to recommending things which will require more funding for lawyers and judges.

This would ensure that nothing was ever done.

Bosworth said :

re: nutters.

The Greens are the of, and for, nutters.

Surely the appropriate place for review of Ministerial decisions is the elected parliament. The ADJR allows review for things like failing to take into account relevant considerations (or taking into account irrelevant considerations). Which will likely make every single ministerial decision open to review, since Ministerial decisons seems to be generally based on irrelevant matters such as the polls.

I fail to see the benefit of this.

We elect our MLAs, MPs to do their job. Unless they do something criminal or try to bring in an unconstitutional law/policy, they should be able to do their job without fear of going to court.

I can usually see where the Greens are coming from (even if I disagree with them) but I really can’t see what benefit this will bring

If this, or something like it, goes ahead, I doubt whether it will do much to further its stated objective. Rather, it would more likely be utilised randomly and capriciously, and, too often, by well-funded cranks. This is hardly the sort of thing we need when the ACT Budget is so far in the red, and when the days ahead look so fiscally tough for the ACT.

I’d give up running this website in a new york minute if every editorial and moderation decision could be referred for third party review on the basis of griefer cranks

The only winners out of this will be NIMBYs, issue motivated groups, fringe parties, and the legal profession.

The losers will be rate/tax payers who will be forced to fork out to defend the actions.

Oh god, now can everyone see why the vast number of sane voters voted against Shane and his Green Eyed Monsters?

Ben_Dover said :

Oh god, now can everyone see why the vast number of sane voters voted against Shane and his Green Eyed Monsters?

This ^^

Duffbowl said :

The only winners out of this will be NIMBYs, issue motivated groups, fringe parties, and the legal profession.

The losers will be rate/tax payers who will be forced to fork out to defend the actions.

This ^^

HiddenDragon said :

If this, or something like it, goes ahead, I doubt whether it will do much to further its stated objective. Rather, it would more likely be utilised randomly and capriciously, and, too often, by well-funded cranks. This is hardly the sort of thing we need when the ACT Budget is so far in the red, and when the days ahead look so fiscally tough for the ACT.

This ^^

The more I think about this, the more I am angered that the Parliamentary Counsel agreed to list this on the Legislation Register under section 19 of the Legislation Act 2001.

I’m going to sue him.

PantsMan said :

The more I think about this, the more I am angered that the Parliamentary Counsel agreed to list this on the Legislation Register under section 19 of the Legislation Act 2001.

I’m going to sue him.

Brilliant!

Get a grip. All he’s doing is admitting third parties. The defendent (the government) will do its best to block action anyway by asking for a security bond – usually $50,000 or $100,000.

It won’t do anything for the community unless there is massive support to raise the money.

If someone is very rich, they might be able to fund it, but that cuts out most so-called nimbies.

Great idea, Shane.

Let’s start with the decision to award you a palatial office and fawning staff well beyond your meagre entitlements.

housebound said :

Get a grip. All he’s doing is admitting third parties. The defendent (the government) will do its best to block action anyway by asking for a security bond – usually $50,000 or $100,000.

It won’t do anything for the community unless there is massive support to raise the money.

If someone is very rich, they might be able to fund it, but that cuts out most so-called nimbies.

Willing to put your house and contents on it?

Ok, contrary opinion. I don’t think there’ll be the nutter flood. Someone would have to decide they want to spend the time and effort and money to have a decision reviewed. For what? Virtually no-one will do it. There are already court procedure rules to block out the vexatious litigants (aka nutters).

People in previous posts were saying they would now go and have all manner of decisions reviewed. But of course you won’t really, because you don’t want to waste your time and money and get booted out by the court.

Also, it’s the rule of law in action, which can be good. Scrutiny and review of the decision makers. Maybe think less about nutters and more about advocacy groups (disability, environment etc) who could get some genuine cases up about government decisions where otherwise they wouldn’t have standing, and potentially the person who is individually affected can’t personally take the case (poverty, unwillingness etc). That could be a really good thing.

spake the nutter

Thought I would jump in on this one and make my first Riot Act post.

I am in no way advocating the ACT ‘opens the floodgates’ on litigation and that won’t happen when the Bill is passed. The floodgates argument is one that’s been long debated around judicial review. It’s also one that’s been discredited by law reform commissions across the country, and it hasn’t happened in jurisdictions with similar legislation in place. The Court Procedures Rules deal with vexatious litigation and will continue to weed out unnecessary cases.

Protecting the rule of law and making decision makers accountable is a good thing. Just think – if some ‘nutter’ could have challenged decisions around giving mining leases to Eddie Obied, what might have happened at the time rather than all these years later?

Shane Rattenbury

Bosworth said :

re: nutters.

PantsMan said :

The Greens are the of, and for, nutters.

johnboy said :

griefer cranks

johnboy said :

nutter

Appreantly anyone who thinks that an administrative decision that breaches one of the grounds in Section 5 is bad and they should be able to do something about it is insane. If this be the case then sign me up as a “nutter”.

ShaneR said :

Thought I would jump in on this one and make my first Riot Act post.

I am in no way advocating the ACT ‘opens the floodgates’ on litigation and that won’t happen when the Bill is passed. The floodgates argument is one that’s been long debated around judicial review. It’s also one that’s been discredited by law reform commissions across the country, and it hasn’t happened in jurisdictions with similar legislation in place. The Court Procedures Rules deal with vexatious litigation and will continue to weed out unnecessary cases.

Protecting the rule of law and making decision makers accountable is a good thing. Just think – if some ‘nutter’ could have challenged decisions around giving mining leases to Eddie Obied, what might have happened at the time rather than all these years later?

Shane Rattenbury

I look forward to challenging those stupid liquor laws you supported.

Matt “drinker at venues that don’t have pokies” Watts

Matt_Watts said :

I look forward to challenging those stupid liquor laws you supported.

Matt “drinker at venues that don’t have pokies” Watts

You can’t challenge a law you can only challenge administrative decisions made under that law and then only on one or more of the grounds listed in Section 5.

davo101 said :

Matt_Watts said :

I look forward to challenging those stupid liquor laws you supported.

Matt “drinker at venues that don’t have pokies” Watts

You can’t challenge a law you can only challenge administrative decisions made under that law and then only on one or more of the grounds listed in Section 5.

Of course, yet there’s a whole heap of decisions that lead up to a law, plus decisions regarding the grant and refusal of licences under that law!

The law will be challenged.

Matt_Watts said :

The law will be challenged.

Not through this process. To quote the act: “decision to which this Act applies” means a decision of an administrative character made, proposed to be made or required to be made (whether in the exercise of a discretion or not) under an enactment, other than a decision mentioned in schedule 1. So you can challenge a administrative decision made under the act but not the act itself.

The cynic in me: didn’t the Law Society, or some of its denizens, contribute handsomely to the ACT Greens? I do hope my political fellow-traveller hasn’t been unconsciously influenced by those donations.

The idealist in me: presumably this will allow court challenges to things like the use of call-in powers to circumvent justifiable community opposition to developments? Mind you it might be fairer and simpler just to get rid of such excessive ministerial powers.

IP

davo101 said :

Matt_Watts said :

The law will be challenged.

Not through this process. To quote the act: “decision to which this Act applies” means a decision of an administrative character made, proposed to be made or required to be made (whether in the exercise of a discretion or not) under an enactment, other than a decision mentioned in schedule 1. So you can challenge a administrative decision made under the act but not the act itself.

I would be challenging decisions made under an act… I’m not going to challenge the Liquor Act directly under this proposed change. But there are acts governing a number of administrative matters I could callenge in addition to, as you and I agree is possible, decisions made under the Liquor Act.

ShaneR said :

Thought I would jump in on this one and make my first Riot Act post.

I am in no way advocating the ACT ‘opens the floodgates’ on litigation and that won’t happen when the Bill is passed. The floodgates argument is one that’s been long debated around judicial review. It’s also one that’s been discredited by law reform commissions across the country, and it hasn’t happened in jurisdictions with similar legislation in place. The Court Procedures Rules deal with vexatious litigation and will continue to weed out unnecessary cases.

Protecting the rule of law and making decision makers accountable is a good thing. Just think – if some ‘nutter’ could have challenged decisions around giving mining leases to Eddie Obied, what might have happened at the time rather than all these years later?

Shane Rattenbury

Admit it – you are not changing much. ADJR is already open to challenge ministerial decisions.

Tell us – how many ADJR appeals against the ACT Government have actually been able to get to court in the past fifteen years or so?

Opening ADJR to third parties won’t change the way the ACT Government conducts itself, as it takes model litigant guidelines as something to be laughed at rather than followed. How many appeals have been squashed by the high security fees? There’s at least three and possibly five I am aware of. Other probably know of more. It is a well-known tactic in legal circles – raise the money stakes until one side gives up.

You have formed a majority government with Labor, so there is no way of reviewing decisions in the Assembly. AJDR is all that is left.