Page 6238 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do not believe that the Government should act as anything other than another good citizen in these circumstances. It should bear its costs in circumstances where there is pre-existing fencing and the Government clearly has the use and enjoyment of land on the other side of the fence. I do not put it any higher than that. It is something that we had better look at later on, and I commend that to the house. I believe that my colleague Mr Jensen has some other comments.
MR JENSEN (5.38): I will be brief. I refer members to clause 40 of this legislation. In doing so, I will not rerun some of the arguments that have already been covered. Of course, I am referring to subclause (3) which relates to defined land. I think it is interesting to get on the record the comments made by Mr John Langmore and reported in the media today in relation to the issue of defined land. They are at variance with the position taken by Mr Wood and the ACT Labor Government. I think it is important to have that placed on the record in the context of this debate.
The process of community consultation has long been acknowledged as a feature of Canberra's planning, especially in recent years. It is something that I would encourage the Government to do, and certainly, as I have already indicated, next year we will be seeking to have this whole process of defined land looked at very carefully, because we believe that it does not provide for the degree of community consultation that the community expects and has a right to receive.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (5.39), in reply: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their comments, not least because they were fairly brief at this dying hour of the Assembly. It is the case, Mr Kaine, that very good filing systems are kept in some parts of the system and information was very rapidly provided. I was most impressed. I note what Mr Collaery says about people whose fences may be adjacent to a walkway and may be damaged through no fault of their own. I can understand them feeling that, because it is a public pathway, they should not have an obligation to repair it while there is no obligation on the part of the government to make some contribution to that.
I can indicate to Mr Collaery that the Government will look at that matter in the new year, even before we are re-elected and also after we are re-elected, and we will discuss with those members who are here what might be a just procedure to follow. I take the points that Mr Collaery has raised.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .