Page 4798 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think that it is quite clear that members generally support this legislation in principle. There are some concerns about the detail. It seems to me, Mr Duby, that if you are not aware of these, and if you cannot explain to us why it is that the differences exist and why there is an overwhelming reason to override the recommendations of the body most involved in the bushfire thing, then the debate should be adjourned in the detail stage at least until the next sitting. This is so that you can explain to us just exactly what it is that has caused you and your department to override those suggestions.
What I would be waiting for is an explanation from you on each one of those areas suggested by the Bush Fire Council. There are differences, and I will be waiting for the explanations. It seems to me that, if those explanations are not full, then we really ought to make sure that we can sort out this detail in a bipartisan fashion and then bring the legislation back to the house in the detail stage.
Mr Jensen: You should have brought it to us earlier.
MR MOORE: Mr Jensen interjects that we ought to have brought this to you earlier.
Mrs Grassby: We did, but they would not listen. Last week I discussed this with you.
MR MOORE: Mrs Grassby also interjects, saying that that is the case.
Bushfires are not one of the priority areas that I normally deal with. I think it is important to understand just why that is the case, which is why I am prepared to give the opportunity now. What I am saying is that, if there is not a satisfactory explanation, then the matter ought to be simply adjourned for a little over a week in order to sort this out, then to bring it back and to run through the detail stage quickly on the floor.
That is a perfectly reasonable way of going about it. If Mr Duby can now provide an overwhelming answer to these questions and to the questions raised by Mr Connolly, I think we can go ahead. But, if that is not the case, I will certainly be moving, at the beginning of the detail stage, that the debate be adjourned. I hope that the Government would see the good sense in that because it is an issue that is of great interest to the community, partly, I suppose, due to fear of fire, and it is one of the things that plague our nation. But it does not have to be that way. It would be of great concern to me if this situation were, in effect, whipped up in a scaremongering fashion, whereas it clearly is a sensitive issue and ought to be dealt with in a fashion that does not result in a public battle of that kind.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .