Page 893 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Briefly, on the question of conservation, heritage and environment, vis-a-vis planning, I would say that the Committee on Conservation, Heritage and Environment already has a huge area of concern. I am very aware, almost frightened to perceive, of the great number of things that have to be done there. To add yet another area I would find very difficult.
There is, however, a practical solution, a practical de facto relationship between some committees. The planning committee is meeting next week and members of the Conservation, Heritage and Environment Committee will join with its members in hearing the evidence being given. Together we can come to a request made by the Chief Minister to reflect on certain matters of planning and heritage. We can do that mutually and I think those practical arrangements will be very successful.
Furthermore, non-members of the committee can always make their views known to the committee, especially to the chairman of the committee. There are useful day-to-day practicalities of working out effective ways of putting this committee work together. I very much rejoice in this report, I hope we will follow through on the various amendments and I hope the committees will begin to meet again successfully from both sides of the house as soon as possible.
MRS NOLAN (4.50): Mr Speaker, as a member of the Administration and Procedures Committee I welcome this report. I would like to thank all those involved with its production - because it really did happen fairly quickly - and especially the committee's secretary, Karin Malmberg.
I believe that, as has been stated by previous speakers, this does represent what could be described as some sort of consensus view. I believe we have tried to give fair consideration to all submissions received from yourself, Mr Speaker, the opposition and the Government. As Mr Jensen and Dr Kinloch have already stated, the workload or the number of references before committees already was a significant factor in looking at any amalgamations. Certainly our concerns about amalgamating the standing committee of planning with Conservation, Heritage and Environment, given the references already before them was, I believe, a factor in recommending the option of them remaining two separate committees. I believe it would be totally improper to allow some of those important references to be left lying on the table for what could be up to two years. Currently we have several references before those two committees, and I would just like to make reference to some that appear on our notice paper today.
We have currently before the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee the national and territorial plans, planning legislation, potential development options for Kingston foreshore, small-scale residential development, alterations to current policy concerning
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .