#28280
Sir Humphrey
Strataguru

    @Austman said:

    Sir Humphrey said

    And then Part 3 and elsewhere in the Act provides more detail. I would argue that s.16(1)(c) covers comment on development proposals in the neighbourhood.

    I think you might be over interpreting S.16(1)(c)?  That function exists in Victoria too.  I think it means the other laws have to specifically give that power to an OC…

    As I suggested elsewhere above, let’s forget about pedantic interpretations. However, if you insist: The EC exercises the functions of the OC. The OC is a ‘legal personality’. Legal persons can have opinions and state them. The EC can say what it likes to whoever it likes on behalf of the OC – so long as it is careful to not overstate things.

    If there is an OC resolution to (say) condemn some proposal, it can state very strongly that the OC objects.

    If it is just plain obvious that some proposal would have some effect, the EC can and should say so on behalf of the OC, even if it would not warrant calling a general meeting or conducting a survey.

    The EC should say what it believes to be defensible and true. If that is “Many of our residents are concerned that…”, then that is what it can say, no more, no less, perhaps on the basis of just talking informally to a fair sampling of residents and finding most concerned. If it is only that “The members of the committee of Units Plan XYZ are concerned that…” then that could also be a fair, true and honest statement to make, even if the committee has not spoken to anyone else. 

    Looking for a specific legal power seems like excessive pedantry to me so long as the committee is being honest, not overstating the situation, and acting defensibly in the interests of the OC.