Page 5022 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 11 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I move:
Page 7, subclause 16(4), lines 10 to 13, omit the subclause.
MR JENSEN (11.19): I wish to make a very brief comment on that. Mr Moore may have had a point if he was talking about a plan; but, in fact, it is the draft plan and not the final plan that he is referring to.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 21
MR MOORE (11.20): You will be pleased to know that I do not feel a great deal of need to speak to this at great length, but I would like to move an amendment to clause 21(a). I would like to delete the words "in a daily newspaper" and write "in the Canberra Times". Without attempting to set this as a particular precedent, and hoping not to show any bias towards the Canberra Times in particular, I think it is appropriate that in each of these cases they get as wide as possible circulation, and that there be no room to move. After all, it would appear that there is no appeals mechanism as part of this legislation.
MR JENSEN (11.21): Quite clearly, the Australian is not published in the ACT. The only daily paper that is published in the ACT is the Canberra Times. Once again Mr Moore is seeking to waste the valuable time of the members of this house.
MR CONNOLLY (11.21): I think Mr Moore is making a substantial point here. He raised a case study where a notice was published in the Australian and not the Canberra Times. That gave rise to a fair degree of community concern. Mr Jensen responded earlier that this provision is satisfactory because the Australian is not published in the ACT. Mr Jensen may well be right on that. I had a recollection that the masthead of the Australian, in fact, lists an address which I thought may be a publication address in each of the Australian State capital cities. I actually went up to the library to see whether I could verify that; but, it being a late hour, the library doors were actually locked. This is, again, a problem. It is a late hour; a substantive point is raised by Mr Moore that there was a case where it was not - - -
Mr Humphries: At the last minute.
MR CONNOLLY: At the first minute, Mr Humphries, because this debate has only just been brought on. Mr Moore's point is a serious one. Mr Jensen has a response which may
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .