Page 5698 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
have to merge comfortably and not be at conflict with each other. So, in a sense, Mr Jensen, you are right; but in trying to get that together you are wrong. It does not work.
MR COLLAERY (4.45): Mr Speaker, the Buildings (Design and Siting) Act 1964 is an anachronism and it should have been brought up to date in this process. To the extent to which we did not get around to it in the Alliance, I accept the blame. As all in this chamber know, some of the real disputes, as exemplified at Forrest recently, are about the scale and intensity, not about the fact of a variation, although there are the absolutists and others who want to stop everything.
The fact is that on our perusal of the Territory Plan and the written statement we can see that we are not resolving, through the mechanisms of the modern package we are bringing in, some of the major problems in the community. We enjoin the Minister to take a step back on this one and think about the wisdom of putting it in now. We will move an amendment. We have a design and siting Bill down for private members' business. It is not beyond us to have it brought up next Wednesday and to move the amendment there. We could just as easily do it here. It creates no complications, in my opinion, to put it in here. It is a laudable provision that will reduce the number of disputes. Let us face it; we are not going to get to the 1964 Act properly for six months or a year.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.46): In a sense you are right, but I do not think we can spend 15 minutes or longer sitting around talking about this. We are not disagreeing in principle, but you have not fixed it by working it this way.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 227
MR MOORE (4.47): I have two amendments to this clause, Mr Speaker - my amendments Nos 8 and 9. Amendment No. 8 has to do with an advertisement in the public notices section of a daily newspaper on a Saturday, and we have discussed it before. Therefore, I will not be moving that amendment, Mr Speaker.
The second amendment I have to this clause is similar in effect to amendments presented by Mr Jensen. The amendment that I have has been drafted by the drafting officer. I wonder whether Mr Jensen would agree - - -
Mr Jensen: We agree.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .