Page 5717 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and purposes, that has reduced the amount of community concern and has provided a much better environment for the people of North Sydney to live in. We believe that the sort of information that we have asked for here will do exactly the same for the ACT.
Briefly, in relation to an infrastructure augmentation statement, that really is a statement of the infrastructure, if any, that will be required to augment the existing infrastructure to allow for development in accordance with the variation. We believe that this information is important. It adds to the knowledge of the community in relation to a proposed variation and would reduce the amount of concern raised by the community in relation to developments.
I suggest to the Minister, having spoken at some length to the people involved in the two recent controversies - the Canberra Bowling Club and the Manuka proposal - that that sort of information may have alleviated a lot of the concern and ensured that the Government would not get as many negative responses to their draft variations. I commend these amendments to members.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (5.36): The Government will accept some of this but not the whole package. The Government will agree to No. 1 of Mr Jensen's amendments. We will agree to No. 2 to the extent of subparagraphs (v), (vi) and (vii). We are not prepared to go down the path of (viii), (ix) and (x). We will agree to No. 3 of his amendments, that definition. We come back to the persistent claim, the attempts of Mr Jensen to - - -
Mr Jensen: Enlightened planning, Mr Wood.
MR WOOD: It might be enlightened planning, but I think it has a temperature around it - if it is getting some light from somewhere - of some millions of degrees centigrade. I do not think it is going to work. I move as an amendment to Mr Jensen's second amendment:
Omit subparagraphs (viii), (ix) and (x).
Amendment (Mr Wood's) agreed to.
Amendments (Mr Jensen's), as amended, agreed to.
MR SPEAKER: Now, Mr Jensen, do you wish to move your amendment No. 3?
MR JENSEN (5.38): Yes, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Government supports it. I move:
Page 4, line 14, subparagraph (c)(ii) of the definition of "background papers", omit "recommendation", substitute "submission".
Amendment agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .