Page 1941 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The only real issue about which care needs to be taken, Madam Speaker, is that of applicants' rights. After reconsidering the draft Bill in this context I decided to change the date at which the sunset clause came into effect from 1 January 1995 to 1 July 1995, the date members will see in this Bill. I believe that a year's notice, or a total of three-and-a-half years since the Land (Planning and Environment) (Consequential Provisions) Act was originally passed by the Assembly, should be more than sufficient time for outstanding applications yet to be determined to be progressed to their completion under old legislation before the new requirements apply.
It could be argued that the issue addressed by this Bill could have waited until the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure has completed its deliberations on the Land Act. That committee, of which I am a member, has been busy this year considering numerous draft variations and residential guidelines, and its timetable for considering the Land Act is not yet clear, although at this stage we are considering holding public hearings in August. I believe that this issue needs to be resolved now; hence my introduction of this Bill.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the passage of this Bill is important to the successful management of the leasehold system in the ACT. It will ensure that after 30 June 1995 all applications for lease variations are determined under the Land Act. It will enshrine the requirement for public notification and the right of appeal with regard to lease variations. It will encourage the finalisation of outstanding applications and, most importantly, it will remove the uncertainty surrounding potential outstanding applications for lease variation under the City Area Leases Act and other old Acts. Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill to the Assembly, and I seek leave to present an explanatory memorandum to the Bill.
Leave granted.
Debate (on motion by Mr Wood) adjourned.
DRUGS OF DEPENDENCE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
MR MOORE (11.02): I present the Drugs of Dependence (Amendment) Bill 1994.
Title read by Clerk.
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
In considering the system of expiation notices in the ACT legislation I introduced in this Assembly, it has now become clear that there are a number of anomalies associated with that Act. The first and most significant of those anomalies is in relation to personal use of marijuana, or cannabis. While individuals now can be given an expiation notice and a $100 fine for possessing or growing cannabis, the law still provides, under subsection 171(2), that a person who actually uses the substance can be given a penalty of either a $5,000 fine or imprisonment for two years. Clearly, that is an entirely inappropriate situation. Subsection 171(2) reads:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .