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

None . . Page.. 278 ..

. residents have purchased and improved property in this area because of its single residence character

. residents request no future approval of dual occupancy in Sections 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 46 O’Malley.

Your petitioners therefore request the Assembly to:

. take whatever action is necessary to stop immediately the proposed development at Block 5 Section 46 O’Malley

. involve the residents in a meaningful consultative process where developments are proposed that change the character of the neighbourhood

. place the onus on proponents of large-scale developments to prove there is no adverse affect on residents’ amenity.

Petition received.


MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (10.31): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to present the Infants' Custody and Settlements (Repeal) Bill 1995.

Leave granted.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I present the Infants' Custody and Settlements (Repeal) Bill 1995.

Title read by Clerk.


That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

First of all, I indicate to the Assembly that, although I have sought this morning to introduce this Bill, because this legislation is not as urgent as I originally indicated to members it was, I will not be seeking to have this Bill debated this week. I am very happy for this Bill to lie on the table until later this month or some later stage in the Assembly's sittings.

This is a Bill to repeal the Infants' Custody and Settlements Act 1956. This Act allowed the Supreme Court to make orders concerning custody and settlements of children prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act in 1975. When the Family Law Act was originally enacted it applied only to children of a marriage. Accordingly, the Infants' Custody and Settlements Act was still necessary for dealing with children not

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