Mr. Robin Mandal:

I have major concerns to do with Part 9 and the replacement for section 50A, as it now is, which goes way beyond the housing and planning and development Bill of 2019, which sought to curtail judicial review. The idea that, as an alternative to being a company, a residents' association can apply for judicial review with the names and numbers of the people in it, but not as the residents' association, stinks a little bit of a different form of SLAPP, which is State legislation against public participation. It would terrify the living daylights out of anybody, going into a court and seeking leave for a judicial review, which is something people have never ever wanted to do in their entire lives, and they have the whole courts system ahead of them. Under this Bill, I find the whole cost issue deeply distressing. That is compounded with having to be the target, which I say advisedly, given our advice at the beginning. I know of cases in which people have been intimidated in terms of taking judicial reviews and people have withdrawn from them. If there is no protection from being part of a residents' association, that is really bad.