Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3353 ..

Mr Berry (continuing):

Mr Humphries, on the other hand, seeks to exclude certain of those "any proposed" uses by inserting the word "significant". That can be interpreted to exclude certain of those proposed uses which Mr Moore requires be put before the Assembly. Therefore, Mr Speaker, you should remain consistent in your rulings and rule Mr Humphries's amendment out of order.

MR SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order. Mr Humphries's amendment is still addressing the subject of Mr Moore's motion.

Mr Berry: What a joke you are, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Careful.

MR HUMPHRIES: I think somebody got out on the wrong side of the bed this morning, Mr Speaker. It would be, I think, onerous and inappropriate to have every minor proposed new use of the lake foreshores or the lakes referred to the Assembly.

Ms Follett: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask you to present the Assembly with your reasons for having ruled out of order an amendment which seeks to expand a motion and having ruled in order an amendment which seeks to contract a motion. From my long experience in this place, I cannot see that the first amendment is out of order. If it is, then so is the second. I would ask, Mr Speaker, as a point of order, whether you would advise the Assembly what form a legitimate amendment might take, because it is the case that in this Assembly on previous occasions we have had amendments that even went so far as to negate the motion entirely. They were not ruled out of order. We do need guidance.

MR SPEAKER: I am happy to take that on board, Ms Follett.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I just say that it would be onerous for the Government to bring to the Assembly every minor change.

Mr Wood: It will change your style. You will not be able to carry on like you did.

MR HUMPHRIES: I am on the record as having taken a significant change of use for a lake in the Territory to the process already provided for in the legislation; namely, a preliminary assessment under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act. We are on the record as having done those sorts of things.

I would describe the proposal before the Assembly as one that is reasonable in its intent, providing, as it does, no requirement for approval of very small uses. Let me give an example of this. I have been approached about supporting another boathouse on the edge of the lake close to an existing boathouse near the Black Mountain Peninsula. That is a use already made of that part of the lake; so, it could not be described as a different use. But if they add something minor to that particular boathouse, such as an office, which is not part of the other boathouse there, that could be viewed as an extended use or a changed use. It would, therefore, be appropriate that we not be in trouble with the Assembly for having approved that and not having put that before the Assembly,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .