Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4339 ..
MS McRAE (4.20): I would just like to pick up on this area, Mr Speaker, in case Mr Moore should infer that the Labor Party took its position in support of the AAT purely and simply on what Stein said. The debate in the Assembly on the Government's response to Stein incorporated the process review that had happened within the department, the PDI review of the Land Act, the Red Tape Task Force review that had been undertaken, as well as the Mant/Collins review. When we were actually debating the response to Stein, we were not looking purely at Stein but looking at a range of other reports that had commented on land and planning management in the ACT.
Labor made its decision on something much broader than just the Stein discussion. Labor also came to its decision on the basis of the types of criticisms and concerns that Mr Humphries raised, which were repeated in many different forums and in many different ways. They led us to believe that the board had not fulfilled the charter for which it had been established. In case any wrong inference should be drawn from Mr Moore's accusations about Mr Humphries's remarks, in respect of which Mr Humphries will have ample time in a moment to defend himself, I just want to put on record that Labor put a lot more thought into its decision than simply responding to some whim in the middle of the night about a random sentence in Stein. I am sure that Mr Humphries did as well.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole
MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.22): Mr Speaker, I move:
Page 15, lines 1 to 4, Schedule, amendments to subsection 256(4BA) and paragraph 256(4BA)(b), omit the amendments.
It is a simple matter, Mr Speaker. The Land (Planning and Environment) (Amendment) Bill (No. 3), which we are now considering, was drafted on the assumption that the Land (Planning and Environment) (Amendment) Bill 1996 would be passed by the Assembly by the time this Bill was considered. In fact, that Bill has not been considered as yet. I am advised that the amendments that were to be effected to subsection 256(4BA) and paragraph 256(4BA)(b) are unnecessary in the circumstances. I urge the Assembly to support this amendment.
I also indicate that there is a minor error in clause 9 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Amendment) Bill, the new section 19A. It refers to section 37(1A) but should refer to section 37(6A). That is an amendment which can be picked up by using standing order 191.
Amendment agreed to.