Page 1221 - Week 05 - Thursday, 4 June 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I am not sure that this is necessarily relevant to the separate code that Mr Rattenbury has put forward today to look at reviewing and how we can reduce the noise associated with commercial waste collection.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (11.42): I thank members for their contribution to the debate. This is a relatively straightforward motion in the sense that it seeks to address a very specific issue. There is a recognition that these are the sorts of questions we need to look at so that residents moving into these areas do not have to put up with the sorts of things we can fix, as the city changes.
In terms of the amendment brought forward by Ms Lawder, I will speak to the two parts to it separately, even though we vote on them together. I think there is an unfortunate typo in the first one. It references the building industry as actively working to reduce noise attenuation in new developments. Noise attenuation is actually the thing that stops the noise coming in, so I think it probably should say to reduce noise or to do noise attenuation work.
On the issue of the design of rubbish collection areas, Ms Lawder is right in that this issue has been kicking around for a long time. I have had many discussions with the property sector where they have talked about their frustration with this and they have asked whether there can be smaller garbage trucks et cetera.
I was pleased to hear the news from Minister Steel—which I have not kept up with, even though I know this issue has been kicking around for a while—of the significant work that has gone into working with industry to update that issue. It is a separate code, so I do not think it applies to the code we are discussing today. And in light of the comments from Minister Steel, we are not inclined to support the second half of that amendment either.
I thank members for their contribution and their support for the central premise here. This Assembly covers a broad range of issues, from discussing matters of national and international significance that impact on our city to dealing with some of the day-to-day things in our more local council function. This issue fits much more in that latter category, but in doing some work on this and asking for this review to be triggered we can make a positive and practical impact on the lives of people who live in some of these areas. I thank members for their support.
Question resolved in the negative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Executive business—precedence
Ordered that executive business be called on.
Planning and Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2020
Debate resumed from 7 May 2020, on motion by Mr Gentleman:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video