Page 5183 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
some consultation with the building industry, the construction industry, to allow reasonable time for them to adapt to the changed provisions. As I said, we do not object to Mr Duby's amendment.
MR DUBY (10.38): I appreciate the Government's acceptance of that amendment. It is clear that any government will set a date, as the Chief Minister has said, after consultation with the industry. We are, in effect, giving the Minister a blank cheque in terms of the date, but I am sure that that date will be promulgated and it will certainly be less than the two years which the Bill specifies.
MR JENSEN (10.39): Mr Speaker, I am a little bit concerned as well. By taking that out we are leaving it open-ended to the Minister. We could reduce the time by making it 12 months instead of two years. By taking out that subclause, we will be leaving it to the Minister. I hope that the Minister will put on the record, before this is voted on, what he proposes as the appropriate date.
MR COLLAERY (10.40): Perhaps I could throw some light on this while the Attorney makes the same voyage. There was discussion as to whether this should be related to substantial alterations and new buildings and so on. Really, it is a question of consultation with the building industry, as the Chief Minister said, but at the same time ensuring that a government will not equivocate on the issue for more than a couple of years. I do not mind; I will accept the view of the Assembly. It is not clear from my historical records that we have spoken to the building industry. Perhaps the Attorney has better advice than I have. I cannot recall consulting the industry, although, at the Federal level, this has been discussed in one of the Federal ministerial committees. I cannot recall the details, so I am unable to assist the house on that matter.
The Women's Electoral Lobby from South Australia responded, as did the South Australian Government, and they believed that this question of access by impaired persons to premises required a reasonableness about the approach. There was a submission by Disabled Peoples International that the time limit for new buildings should be one year and that it should apply to all substantial alterations. They also advise that renovation is often an excellent time to make a building accessible, and the building controller could intervene at the time people, particularly commercial lessees, apply to renovate a building. There were a number of issues discussed there. I am unable to assist any further.
Amendment agreed to.
Clauses, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 63 taken together
Debate (on motion by Mr Berry) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .