Page 5413 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think this is important because there can often be quite a long time between when the draft variation is submitted and when the time for comment on the draft variation closes and the actual document is submitted to the Executive. I give as a prime example the recent major draft variation for the Yarralumla Brickworks area. That was tabled and put out for public consultation some time in October or November 1990. As members may recall, it then disappeared off the agenda, except for the odd occasion when it was brought back. Just recently, of course - and it is only just recently - the draft variation was brought down, signed by the Government, by the Executive of the day, and tabled in this Assembly, not quite 12 months after the document was put out to the community for comment.
Many members of the community may have thought that that proposal had gone away and was not being considered by the Government. But, all of a sudden, it popped out of the woodwork again with quite substantial changes - major changes, in fact. I am suggesting that in those circumstances it is quite appropriate for those people who were involved in the original consultation, which may have finished some eight or nine months earlier, to be reminded not only by a notice in the Gazette and newspaper but also by a letter to them. The cost of a 43c stamp would seem to me not inappropriate. That is one of the major reasons why we have proposed this additional subclause.
In view of the long period involved, I trust that members will support this proposed new subclause. It will ensure that members of the community who were involved in the process are kept advised. As we have already indicated, it could well be that they are out of town at the time an advertisement appears in the daily newspaper. That is always on the cards, as we know, and not too many people read the Gazette avidly. I think it is important for this particular subclause to be carried. I know that the Government, originally, was not going to support this. I hope against hope, I guess, that they have changed their mind.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.26): I have spoken before against that part of this amendment that is contained in paragraph (b). I do not think it is necessary to write letters to everybody. Of course, Mr Jensen writes it down when he says that it involves only a 43c stamp. It involves a great deal more than that to take on this task. I do not think it is necessary. Therefore, I foreshadow that I will move for the deletion of paragraph (b) from Mr Jensen's proposed new subclause.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.26): Mr Speaker, I believe that the matters that Mr Jensen raises are already covered, in some measure, under various other clauses. I oppose his amendment in principle, principally
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .