Page 4729 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991

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

---

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Moore's) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 5  NOES, 8 

Mr Collaery Mr Berry
Mr Jensen Mr Connolly
Dr Kinloch Mrs Grassby
Mr Moore Mr Humphries
Mr Stevenson Mrs Nolan
 Mr Prowse
 Mr Stefaniak
 Mr Wood

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8

MR MOORE (9.05): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak to clause 8 just to draw attention to part of the impact of what we did when we agreed to delete subclause 3(2). Clause 8 states:

The Territory, the Executive, a Minister or a Territory authority shall not do any act, or approve the doing of any act, that is inconsistent with the Plan.

Whilst the Act binds the Crown, we no longer have a case where the Crown can be exempted from prosecution. Here is an example which illustrates, on my reading of the legislation as it is now, that, if an act by the Territory Executive or a Minister is inconsistent with the plan, then in fact a prosecution is allowable.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 14, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 15

MR MOORE (9.07): Mr Speaker, I move:

Page 8, line 36, add the following subclause:

"(3) All variations to the Plan prepared by the Authority shall be in accordance with the document known as the Metropolitan Policy Plan (1984) until that policy plan is replaced by a further comprehensive strategy for the long term development of land in the Territory.".

---

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