Page 4267 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 20 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
House of Representatives Practice refers to three cases, and in all cases those responsible were identified by committees of the House of Representatives as being guilty of contempt. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I would call on all of those involved with the Assembly and the reporting of proceedings to ensure that they respect the conventions that apply to the proceedings of our committees and ensure that there are no more cheap headlines and no unfounded concern such as has flowed from the two occasions on which draft reports of the Assembly committees have been prematurely disclosed.
Mr Speaker, I would now like to return to the report, and in doing that, acknowledge the support provided to us, the members of the committee, by the committee staff, who have worked hard to ensure that this report has been tabled today. They play an important role in the process. While I will not name them, members and those who work in the Assembly know to whom I am referring.
Mr Speaker, the committee has made a total of seven recommendations, and I would now like to make some comments about these recommendations and about some of the background to the report. This issue has been around in the ACT for some time. From the view of the political process, it goes back to 11 November 1975, a red letter day in the political history of Australia. It is very interesting that front fences were on the agenda of the old House of Assembly on the day that a Prime Minister was getting the riot act read to him on the steps of the old Parliament House. However, the last time that it was formally considered by the Assembly, or the political group within the ACT, was in May 1983. A major survey of front fences in the ACT which was undertaken by the NCDC in 1982 was used as a basis for a series of recommendations by the old House of Assembly,s standing committee on city management. However, all that came from that report was a release, in September 1984, of a revised set of design and siting policies which allowed for the construction of courtyards, subject to certain conditions.
These policies have continued since self-government, and the recommendations of this report seek to advance this process of change a further step forward. One of the first things that the committee observed was a general lack of enforcement of the policy. At least 3,700 structures were identified in 1982 which were considered to be illegal.
Mr Berry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: it was a few moments ago and it has taken a little while to sink in, but it seems to me that Mr - - -
Mr Humphries: It usually does.
Mr Berry: I think I raised the point of order; you will get your turn later. Mr Jensen inferred that I had something to do with the leaking of this report. I would ask that that be withdrawn, if that was the case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .