Page 1004 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Masters Builders Association and the Housing Industry Association in this case is how they can save some more money, and they are entitled to have and to put that perspective. But that is the only side you have taken. That is what you are operating on. What kind of consultation is that? It really illustrates quite clearly from where this Government and the Planning Authority are getting their instructions.
What are we going to get instructions on next time when we use this same method? We will allow a discretion on front fences and, having allowed it for two years, three years, four years, or seven years, we will not need any public consultation. We will just say, "Okay, we are going to bring in front fences because, after all, the Master Builders Association decided that they want front fences". That is going to be the approach that we are going to take. This is developing a policy by stealth through the back door.
What these variations do is to clarify some of the standards and make them minimum standards. Mr Wood's approach is, "Look, if this were going to affect the rights of any people, then we would need to go out for some public consultation". Of course it is going to affect the rights of people, and it is going to affect their right to privacy. A fence that is 1.8 metres high is about the height I now indicate. The vast majority of people cannot see over it. Perhaps Mr Berry, if he is wearing his platform shoes, will be able to see over a fence that high if he stands on his tippy toes. But the vast majority of people cannot see over a 1.8-metre high fence. People are entitled to their privacy. At 1.5 metres people like me, very easily, without even trying, can just glance over the fence and see what the neighbours are up to.
Mr De Domenico: You are in a serious mode, Michael. Don't smile.
Mr Lamont: The fence at his house is 1.2 metres, but don't worry about that.
MR MOORE: Mr Lamont interjects, and I realise that he will be in the same boat as the rest of us are with a height of 1.8 metres. Nevertheless, for quite a proportion of our community it will mean that their privacy is lost. We are talking about cottages, townhouses, and so forth. So there will be a loss of privacy that will have an impact on the community. And who are the only people who have actually commented on this? The Master Builders Association and the Housing Industry Association. It is important that they should be consulted; that is quite right. There is no question about that. But they ought not be the only people who are consulted. So what we are talking about with this motion is not so much whether this variation, this waiving of the rules, this change, should or should not go ahead; the point is that there is a very good reason to ensure that appropriate process is followed.
Mr Wood raised the issue of the critical date in July and I think it is a very important issue. It raises the fact that the public consultation process that should have taken place should have been done quickly, and speeding up that process would have been entirely appropriate. But this has now come into the Assembly at the last minute in order to get it through. You can see how these sorts of things happen. I know that no department in the ACT would purposely do this sort of thing, would leave something to the last moment and then put pressure on. I know that probably no public servant in Australia, or public servant section in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .