Page 1999 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am concerned that there is such a large number of amendments to fix language and make it better. I am concerned that tonight we are bulldozing this legislation through without the necessity of timing. I go back to the point that I made in the in-principle stage a couple of days ago: I do not want us to be in the situation that we were after the passage of the L Act where we still have language that is wrong.
I think that there should be a much more thoughtful approach to this. We have got to the 11th hour with these amendments—amendments which were put together on Monday; the last time they were printed off was on Monday—and we are still having to put in amendments to take out “direct grant” and put in “direct sale”. It makes me wonder what else is here that should be more carefully considered. Many of Mr Seselja’s amendments and many of the government’s amendments point to the fact that the first cut that was presented to the Assembly was not good enough. We are now here on a wing and a prayer hoping that these amendments are good enough.
The people of the territory deserve exemplary planning legislation. We have never had it. I hope that we will not be back here in two or three months time—before this bill has even commenced, which is not for another six months or more—saying, “We have still got some problems here. We have got to fix up the language here. There is still an ambiguity there.” When you listen to the minister, who has not been here long in this place, reading the explanations of these things, you know that he does not understand it. If he does not understand it, what hope is there for the rest of us?
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 136, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 137.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (6.04): I move amendment No 40 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 2065].
I will need to sound authoritative now when reading this bit after the very harsh dig that Mrs Dunne has just had at me across the chamber. If only I had the time to be able to recite this legislation backwards. I do, of course, have to rely on the outstanding work of officials, and I thank them for being here with us this evening.
Amendment No 40 substitutes a new clause 137 (1) (a) in the bill. It states that the clause applies if a requirement under a code that applies to a development proposal is that an entity approves the development or certifies something in relation to the development. There is no substantive change from the bill and the amendment is for clarification of wording. The subclause makes it clear that this provision applies to situations where the relevant code requires approval from another agency.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 137, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .