Page 4540 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

MR COLLAERY (12.31), by leave: Mr Speaker, I disagree with the advice tendered to the Minister, Mr Bill Wood, that the amendment moved relates to a provision and therefore is ultra vires. The Act clearly says, at section 5:

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to a draft Plan is to be read as a reference to -

(a) a draft stage or part of the Plan; or

(b) a provision ...

I have moved an amendment relating to part of the plan. I am sustained in my view, on my brief perusal of the legislation, by subsection 16(5), which deals with what the authority would do where there has been a disallowance motion. It says clearly at paragraph 16(5)(b):

(b) in the case of a draft Plan variation - the effect of section 9 in relation to the revival of the draft variation.

Section 9 refers to the process which we are going through now, here, in this Assembly, and that is the rejection or amendment of a draft variation. I cannot support the advice, with great respect to Mr Wood's advisers, on my brief perusal of the legislation. I think it is a red herring at this stage. I think it was prudent of Mr Berry, as leader of the house, to adjourn the debate so that, no doubt, the Government can get further advice.

Mr Connolly: He did exactly the opposite.

MR COLLAERY: Do you want to adjourn the debate?

Mr Wood: No; let us have the vote.

Amendment (Mr Collaery's) negatived.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Jensen's) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 7  NOES, 10 

Mr Collaery Mr Berry
Mr Jensen Mr Connolly
Dr Kinloch Mr Duby
Mr Moore Ms Follett
Mrs Nolan Mrs Grassby
Mr Prowse Mr Humphries
Mr Stevenson Mr Kaine
 Ms Maher
 Mr Stefaniak
 Mr Wood

Question so resolved in the negative.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .