Page 3085 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 10 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On 6 August 1991 the Minister introduced the Interim Planning (Amendment) Bill 1991, intended, inter alia, to provide the Executive with a power to revoke its approval of a plan at any time before the plan is laid before the Assembly. This Bill passed the Assembly on 6 August.
On 7 August the Minister presented to the Assembly a notice of revocation under the Interim Planning Act, dated 7 August 1991, revoking the Executive approvals of 23 May 1991 in respect of certain variations to the Territory Plan including those in respect of the school sites at Curtin, Holder, Cook, Lyons and Hackett. These revocations were also notified in the ACT Special Gazette No. S81 dated 7 August 1991.
In the light of the amendments to the Interim Planning Act and the subsequent revocation action by the Government, there is no basis for further inquiry into the school sites reference by the committee.
Sitting suspended from 5.21 to 8.00 pm
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
Debate resumed from 8 August 1991, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR STEFANIAK (8.00): The Liberal Party certainly does not have any problems with this Bill. It was, in fact, one which was put forward during the time of the Alliance Government - not that that necessarily means that there will not be something that we have the odd problem with now that the situation has changed. But in this particular case it is a pretty straightforward Bill. Indeed, I think it will make life a lot easier for interstate practitioners and, indeed, the courts.
As some members will know - certainly those associated with the law - at various times during the year, usually on a Friday, the court admits new practitioners. Clause 14 of this Bill provides for local practitioners still to be admitted by oath or affirmation before the court, and that is as it should be. However, interstate practitioners, practitioners from overseas and practitioners from New Zealand had to turn up in person, which was a somewhat time consuming process, given that they were already practising in their respective jurisdictions. This Bill provides for the necessary paperwork to be done by the court registrar, but simplifies the procedure, thus freeing up very valuable court time for more important matters. It is very much a procedural Bill and, accordingly, is supported by the Liberal Opposition.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .