Page 3339 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 12 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
I have just introduced into the Assembly the Land (Planning and Environment) (Amendment) Bill (No. 4) 1993. That Bill establishes the Land and Planning Appeals Board and provides that, generally, it will be responsible for hearing appeals under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991. The Bill which I now introduce proposes amendments to the Land (Planning and Environment) (Consequential Provisions) Act 1991 which are a necessary consequence of the new appeals arrangements.
Section 29 of the consequential provisions Act provides a mechanism that affords protection to a place of possible heritage significance. This is achieved by an order being issued directing a person to stop or not to commence to work in relation to the external design and siting of a building on a place which may be of possible heritage significance. The decision to make an order is appealable. Appeals relating to heritage matters under the Land Act are to be heard by the appeals board. The consequential provisions Act should be amended accordingly. I present the explanatory memorandum for the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Kaine) adjourned.
DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIPS LEGISLATION
Discussion Paper
Debate resumed from 16 June 1993, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That the Assembly takes note of the paper.
MR HUMPHRIES (8.15): The discussion paper that we are considering tonight was tabled in June this year. It is a very significant discussion paper. I think it is fair to say that it has had less attention in the broader community than it probably should have had in the last few months. It seems to have slipped in under the radar to some extent. That is surprising, because its implications are quite important. I think that the implications are so far-reaching that we will need to consider very carefully how we handle the implications of this Bill.
Mr Berry: Come on, Gary! Get on with it. I want to get to the guts of what you are on about.
MR HUMPHRIES: I know that Mr Berry is dying to hear what I have to say, but he will have to be patient.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it has long been acknowledged that de facto partners in the ACT are in a very different legal position from married spouses. The rights of those people in the ACT, and probably many other places in Australia, are subject in many respects to the laws of trusts and the laws of contract, whereas those of spouses, generally speaking, are subject to the Family Law Act, which sets out fairly comprehensively what the position is. Whatever one might think about the Family Law Act, its one major merit is its clarity and the fact that it more or less codifies the law in this particular area. It is possible to examine the Act to find where one stands if one has a marital or domestic dispute, if one is married.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .