2021-10-12 Planning & Environment Committee Meeting Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                       12 OCTOBER 2021


Under co-regulation, the “rules” are drafted in close consultation and cooperation with affected
parties. The advantage of this approach is that a higher level of compliance with the rules can be
expected because those who are affected by the rules have agreed to them.
Under the negative licensing alternative, there is no requirement to first obtain an approval to enter
the relevant market. The presumption in this regime is that operators are prepared to play by the
rules if they know what the rules are and whilst operators are charged a token fee for certification
that their operations comply with standards, the expectation is that operators who wilfully fail to
comply are fined heavily and immediately, and that complaints are responded to swiftly and
forcefully.
Under a negative licensing regime, the local law would be amended to remove the requirement to
hold an approval. The local law would specify a range of generic standards which must be complied
with in relation to the conduct of the prescribed activity.
The public interest test report in Attachment 7:
(a)     identifies positive and negative impacts on stakeholders from moving to the alternatives
        (which were chosen for further consideration) identified in the public interest test plan; and
(b)     contains an analysis of the costs and benefits of moving to the identified alternatives; and
(c)     concludes that, overall, the analysis of the costs and benefits of moving to the co-regulation
        alternative has determined that there would be a negligible net benefit in moving to a co-
        regulation regime;
(d)     concludes that, overall, the analysis of costs and benefits of moving to the alternative of
        negative licensing has determined that there would be a net cost in moving to a negative
        licensing regime.
The public interest test report concludes that the identified anti-competitive provisions should be
retained in full in the public interest, because:
(a)     the benefit of these provisions to the community as a whole outweighs the cost; and
(b)     the most appropriate way of achieving the objectives of the proposed local law is by
        restricting competition in the way provided in the provisions, having regard to Council’s duty
        of good rule and local government in its local government area.
Human Rights Act 2019
In developing the proposed local law, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with
the requirements of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019. It is considered that the proposed
local law justifiably limits certain property rights, right to liberty and right to privacy for the following
reasons.
Property rights
As the local government authority, Council is authorised to make local laws under the Local
Government Act 2009 to regulate the use of land including limiting a property owner’s use of a
premises and the behaviour of its occupants to protect the safety of occupants, rights of other
property owners, residential amenity, community standards and values.
Right to liberty
A code of conduct for guest behaviour is justified to establish acceptable behaviours and
parameters for use of the property to reduce the impacts on residential amenity and the right for
residents to quiet enjoyment of their home.
Right to privacy
A nominated contact person’s details are required to ensure any complaints are dealt with in a
timely manner to ensure the residential amenity is maintained for residents.




                                                                                           Page 22 of 185