Vol. 13 No. 11
I move amendment 1:—
Section 2, sub-section (2). To delete the words "subject as aforesaid," in line 47.
Perhaps I might say at the outset that the five amendments circulated in my name are, strictly speaking, drafting amendments. The words proposed to be deleted in this amendment should have been deleted on the Committee Stage, because the things aforesaid had already been deleted.
I second.
I move amendment 2:—
Section 4, sub-section (2). After the word "held," in line 58, to insert the words "as hereinafter provided."
This amendment simply deals with a matter of construction and draughtsmanship.
I second.
On behalf of Senator Sir Bryan Mahon I move amendment 2a., and the other amendments in the Senator's name on the Paper circulated to-day:—
Section 7. After the word "time" in line 43, to insert the words "not being less than six months."
I second.
I do not think there need be any objection to accepting this amendment. It is not unreasonable, and I am quite prepared to support it.
I move amendment 2b: Section 7. After the words "of" in line 45 to delete the words "the district or."
I second.
I ask the House not to accept this amendment. This series of amendments has been put down—I am not divulging any secret in saying this—at the suggestion of a bill-posting company. The suggestion in this amendment is that the words "the district or" be deleted. One of the reasons for the amendment—the reason has not been stated to the House, but it has been stated privately—is that the deletion of these words will bring the Bill into conformity with the British Rules. That is not quite correct. The Bill, as submitted by the Committee, is, I think, quite sufficient but is the least that is necessary to protect the amenities of any area. The section reads:—
The responsible authority may, and when required by the Minister shall, serve a notice upon any person, requiring him within reasonable time to remove any advertisement, advertising station or hoarding or sign, whether attached or not attached to the buildings where the amenity of the district or any public or private open space in the area is, in the opinion of the responsible authority or the Minister, injured by the display of such advertisement.
The proposal in this amendment is to delete the words "the district or." The proposal in a later amendment is to leave out the district and only deal with public parks. If we are going to propose to give the Minister power to remove offensive advertisements only in the case of public parks, there is no use in putting in such a section as this at all, because it is already provided that a local authority can protect public parks without any new Act. This whole series of amendments would, if adopted, go far to destroy a section intended to protect the public against offensive and unsightly advertisements. I ask the House not to agree to the amendment.
This series of amendments was only presented to members as they came here to-day. In view of their importance—so far as we know they are at the instance of a commercial concern engaged in advertising posters—we should, I think, either turn them down altogether at once or adjourn the Report Stage of this Bill until such time as we have an opportunity of giving them adequate consideration. In view of the fact that I only received my copy of the amendments a short time ago, I do not like to express any opinion on them now. I think, however, that we ought either to defeat all of them to-day or adjourn the consideration of the Report Stage of the Bill until we see what are the implications in these amendments.
I do not know why we should adopt the course of adjourning the Report Stage. These amendments have been prepared by merely one advertising firm outside, and the Senator who has moved them has given no argument or reason in support of them good, bad or indifferent. It is obvious without a prolonged examination that the result of adopting amendments such as the one now under discussion would be that anyone in any of the finest residential districts could set his front garden to an advertising agency and have garish or lurid posters displayed in that garden, and the Town Planning Bill would not be able to remedy that. In other words, you could only preserve the amenities of a public park or open space, but, as Senator Johnson has pointed out, a public authority has power to preserve the amenities of such a place. What we want is to preserve the amenities of a district, particularly residential districts in rural areas. That is what this Bill proposes to do. I do not think the House need have any hesitation in rejecting the amendment unless we are to scrap one of the principal objects of the Bill.
I agree with Senator O'Farrell that we should not adjourn the Report Stage but should go through with it now. There is a great deal in what both Senators have said. Some of the amendments the House might be prepared to agree to.
I have already accepted one.
In my opinion these amendments are out of order. They have been presented only at the last moment. I do not think they should be taken into consideration but should be thrown out.
I move:—
Section 7. "After the word ‘public' in line 45, to insert the word ‘park."'
We want a definition of a public park as opposed to a park. There is no clear definition of what a private open space is. It might mean anything.
The Bill is intended to preserve a district from unsightly advertisements. We desire to preserve the amenities of the district, and to prohibit the publication of garish, unsightly or ugly advertisements even in private open spaces.
I move:—
Section 7. To delete the word "private" in line 46.
I second.
I oppose.
I move:—
Section 7. To delete the words "in the opinion of the responsible authority or the Minister," in lines 46-7.
I second.
I am against this amendment.
I move:—
Section 7. Before the word "injured" in line 47, to insert the word "seriously."
This is in order to bring the Bill into conformity with the English town planning measure.
I second.
I move:—
Section 7. To delete the words "the Minister whose decision shall be final" and to substitute therefor the words "a Court of Summary Jurisdiction."
I second.
I oppose this for it merely seeks to raise another obstacle, and places the authority within the jurisdiction of a court which is not competent to judge in a matter of that kind. I think a court of summary jurisdiction should not be called upon to decide whether an injury is created by the presentation of advertisements of an unsightly character. That is not work such a court should be called upon to perform. It is not a question of interpreting law or sentencing people to imprisonment. This is a case where a specialised department ought to be the judge. I think the proposal in the amendment is quite unreasonable and would diminish the value of the Bill considerably.
I move:—
2h. Section 7. To add at the end of the section two new sub-sections, as follows:—
"2. This section shall not for a period of five years from the date of the approval of this Scheme apply to hoardings or similar or other structures erected or in use for advertising purposes prior to that date, or any advertisements displayed thereon during that period or any other advertisements displayed at the date of the approval of the Scheme.
"3. Any person shall apply to the responsible authority for their consent to the erection of a hoarding or the display of an advertisement in the area, and consent shall be deemed to have been given, if the responsible authority do not notify their refusal to consent within one month from the date of the receipt of the application. Where, on any such application the responsible authority refuse their consent, the applicant may, within twenty-one days from the date of notification of refusal, appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction, and the court may, if they think just, make an order permitting the erection of the hoarding or the display of the advertisement to which the application relates."
I second.
I shall oppose this amendment not by words but by my vote.
I move:—
Section 10, sub-section (2). After the word "may" in line 61, to insert the words "or may not."
The words "or may not," we are advised from the legal aspect, ought to be inserted to make the intention plain. It is possible that it might be interpreted to require compensation to be given in the case of building areas outside those that have been specifically mentioned.
I second.
I move:—
Section 12, sub-section (1). To delete the words "or to adopt the scheme," in line 34.
This is consequential to an amendment inserted in Committee.
I second.
I move:—
Section 12, sub-section (1). To delete lines 36 to 42, inclusive.
This amendment is also consequential on one adopted on the Committee Stage.
I second.
