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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3693 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

This variation has been released for public comment. It received a small amount of public comment. It may receive more in the future when approval is given, in particular cases, to locate transportable units in the backyards of some Canberra homes. I think the principle is a sound principle and I hope that the members of the Assembly will endorse and support the concept, because it is one which does provide a number of Canberrans with a means of providing care for their aged relatives or their disabled relatives in a way which is not presently possible. I hope that, as a compassionate community, we will embrace that opportunity.

I want to emphasise the Government's very clear intention that, if this device is used by residents of the ACT, the continuing use of transportable units in Canberra backyards is not to extend beyond the end of the particular need for which it was established. Mr Moore was asking me yesterday about enforcement of the Territory Plan. I want to make it very clear to members here and, particularly, to my department that enforcement of the requirements to remove those units when the person for whom they were established or a person with similar requirements is no longer there is quite explicit and that there will have to be a very prompt enforcement of any requirements where people decide they are going to leave them as an additional feature of their present housing arrangements. That is not to be permitted. We do not want to see these units appearing in every second backyard. They are there for special purposes and they should be there only for the duration of those special purposes. I believe that would be the spirit in which this would be a successful amendment to the Territory Plan.

MR MOORE (11.05), in reply: Mr Speaker, this report is yet another report that the Assembly committee had quite a deal of difficulty with. In fact, it seems a long time ago now. It is about halfway through the number of reports we have tabled in the Assembly - Report No. 21. Once again, there was a compromise approach. We tested and checked that the appropriate action could be taken by the department, and it was not until we were sure that that was the case that we approved it. I think it was one of the longest times we took over variations to the Territory Plan, because there were still outstanding issues as far as we were concerned. Mr Speaker, I am pleased with the Government's response and, of course, pleased that the committee was able to come to a sensible compromise position on the issue.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Debate resumed from 10 December 1996, on motion by Mr Moore:

That the report be noted.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.06): Mr Speaker, it has been some time now since the land swap was completed and, of course, we have seen in recent days the design chosen for the National Museum of Australia. The debate which has preceded this point has been acrimonious; but we would all have been pleased, enthused and even inspired

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