This speech is in relation to the Heritage (Beechwood Garden) Amendment Bill.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:
Page 3, lines 10 to 18— Delete subclause (3) and substitute:
(3) For the purposes of subclause
(1), a significant variation of a heritage agreement is a variation—
(a)that makes provision with respect to—
(i)the division of the prescribed land (being a division of land within the meaning of the Development Act 1993); or
(ii)the granting of any lease, licence, easement or other right relating to the use, occupa¬tion or control of the prescribed land: or
(b)that provides for or permits a significant alteration of the garden constituted within the prescribed land; or
(c)that otherwise significantly varies the agreement, but does not include a variation that only makes provision with respect to a transfer of the prescribed land to a new owner.
The legislative history of this small bill is that it was introduced by Isabel Redmond, the local member who represents that area, as she gave a commitment that some additional protections would be provided to the gardens. The minister moved an amendment which in effect has limited this bill by placing a couple of prescriptions in it. The particular wording that we have been interested in is in relation to `significant variations' and, while we do not want rats and mice issues to all be brought back to the parliament, we do not want to just limit it to the two conditions that the government inserted into this bill. The amendment is not enormously or radically different from the wording as it entered this chamber, but the wording of paragraphs (b) and (c) are the additional words in that. I indicate that the member for Heysen negotiated those with parliamentary counsel to ensure that they would meet the wishes of the local residents and ensure that broader protection for the garden.