Page 1991 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Division 7.2.6 (clauses 132 to 134).
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.36): I move amendment No 32 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 2065].
Amendment agreed to.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (5.36): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 2 and 4 on the blue sheet circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR SESELJA: I move amendments Nos 2 to 4 circulated in my name on the blue sheet together, which amend Mr Barr’s amendment No 32 [see schedule 3 at page 2102].
These amendments follow on from the amendments we moved last Tuesday, I believe, in relation to use as development. They are not necessary if they take out the concept of use as development, which we have advocated and we will continue to advocate. Of course, the government is not going to support us on this, but we believe it is an important principle. These are a part of a suite of amendments in relation to moving that concept out of the bill.
I understand that the “gang of nine” have come out again. They are, with one voice, unified in their opposition to use as development, which certainly backs our claim that there is significant concern amongst those who will have to deal, most pointedly, with this concept. This is certainly not, as the minister said, just the position of the property council or just a property developer’s problem; it is a much broader issue. We think it may well be a serious problem once it is passed. That is the rationale for moving these additional amendments. We will continue to oppose this concept.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.38): The amendments that I have moved revise division 7.2.6 of the bill as follows. New clause 132 clarifies the definition of “exempt development” with a reference to new clause 132A. New clause 132A is inserted. The purpose of this clause is to exempt specified use from requiring development approval.
Clause 132A (8) defines “authorised use” for the purpose of this clause. “Authorised use” includes use authorised by “a lease, a licence, a permit under the Roads and Public Places Act 1937, a provision of chapter 15 (Transitional), and includes a use authorised by a lease that expired not more than 6 months before the use if the lease is renewed within 6 months after the expiry and does not include a use authorised by clause 240 of the bill”. Clause 240 authorises home business to be conducted on residential leases.
New clause 132A sets out the circumstances under which an authorised use is exempt or not exempt. “Authorised use” is exempt from requiring development approval
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .