Page 1353 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 10 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY (3.37), in reply: I want to respond to some of the comments that were made by Ms Szuty. There is a suggestion in the comments that Ms Szuty made that there is an inadequacy in the approach that has been taken by the committee in relation to this matter because of the extra suggestions that she made in relation to the guidelines. I do not recall those matters being tested. Had they been tested, I do not know whether they would have been agreed to or not agreed to; but on the face of them they did not seem too difficult to address, from my point of view.
I understand that members' time is valuable and that members often need to put a lot of time into these committees. We all recognise that. But I would not like it to be understood by anybody that there was some inadequacy in the approach that has been taken by the committee in relation to those particular guidelines. The absence of opportunity for Ms Szuty to canvass the issues that she raised is not something that is the fault of the committee. I can assure her and other committee members that where a decision is made by the committee to revisit certain matters they will be revisited, and nobody will be denied an opportunity to propose that something be revisited. Whether or not it is agreed to by the committee is another matter.
I make those comments as a relative newcomer to the process and as the chair of the committee with a willingness to see that matters are considered. I know that at the conclusion of the committee procedures the other day Ms Szuty mentioned that she would have liked to say other things. But, if we are to do it that way, we really have to ensure that matters are put before the committee formally in order that all members can make some sort of an assessment of that which is proposed by members from time to time.
I raise those matters, not as a criticism of Ms Szuty, but rather out of concern that some members of the community might think that the committee is opposed in some way to that which she has suggested. I am not in a position to commit other committee members to that which she has proposed either. I know that the Minister will take into account the views that she has raised, but I think committee members would prefer to do it in the first place.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE -
STANDING COMMITTEE
Report on Draft Variation to the Territory Plan - Griffith
MR BERRY (3.40): Madam Speaker, I present report No. 28 of the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure on the draft variation to the Territory Plan for Griffith, section 18, block 4 - known as Eastern Suburbs Rugby Union Club - together with a copy of the extracts from the minutes of proceedings. This report was provided to you, Madam Speaker, for circulation on Friday, 6 May 1994, pursuant to the resolution of appointment. I move:
That the report be noted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .