Page 5548 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the time, and there will be some debate. As I say, that is what he argues. I have not argued that. I have argued that we should be removing the provision and putting the onus back on the department to renew the provision.
As I see it, if the Liberal Party are not prepared to support this and are prepared to support the Government on this clause, I think it would be appropriate at least for the Minister to indicate a commitment to begin the redrafting of this clause to ensure that it is drafted in a satisfactory way.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (3.47): Mr Speaker, I will not give that commitment to redraft it; I will give a commitment to examine it further. That is as far as I will go at this stage. I have been trying to catch up with Mr Collaery. I am not sure about the relevance of clause 29 to this case at all.
Mr Collaery: It is just an example.
MR WOOD: Well, I am not sure it is much of an example. I think you have looked for a clause where we see both "Plan" and "variation". The "provision of a Plan variation" comes into it. I think it is a long bow that you have drawn. Nothing that has been said changes my mind about this and I do not think that the amendment adds anything either. We do not have appeals against draft variations, in any case.
MR COLLAERY (3.48): Mr Speaker, I formally move that amendment circulated in my name:
Page 22, line 27, add the words "or of any provision of a Plan variation.".
We are not convinced from the Minister's statement that the position is clear. What we are seeking to have clarified to us - the Minister has his legal advisers - is whether the validity of a provision of the plan, where it says that in clause 50, refers to variations. It does refer to a variation to a provision - where a provision is changed.
Say that you have a provision in the plan that has been standing for five years and there is some change to the provision. The essential provision remains there, but there is a change to it. It may affect someone or some party. It could even be a builder. It could even set new standards for builders. Does that mean that the builders themselves cannot challenge? We do not want to get into a mindframe of thinking always about the resident out there. We will not press the point if the position can be clarified to us.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (3.49): Looking at this thing, I can understand, as I said before, the concern that the members of the Rally and Mr Moore are expressing because it says "shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings". I do not know how far that goes or quite
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .