Page 5014 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 11 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I suggest that the Chief Minister, if he was being reasonable, would allow us to discuss this Bill and come back to it on Thursday rather than having to deal with these things across the floor and to make them into a conflict situation, instead of dealing with them in a bipartisan way, as has been the attempt of the Labor Party, and me. I came out, right from the word go, saying that I supported it. This is something else that you have botched up by slapping this Bill together.
MR CONNOLLY (10.47): The Opposition is certainly inclined to support Mr Moore's points here, and we express some dismay at the turn that this debate is taking. Again, as Mr Moore points out, it demonstrates the problems of rushing through legislation such as this. The Chief Minister's response to Mr Moore's suggestion that this period is somewhat short was to ridicule Mr Moore. The Chief Minister said that this was the same period that applied in the draft legislation for the comprehensive package, and because Mr Moore had not objected to that in the comprehensive package, therefore, his objection here was merely some piece of gamesmanship or petty political point scoring. That does not follow.
As I pointed out in my opening remarks, and as Mr Moore reiterated - unfortunately the Chief Minister is out of the room - the comprehensive planning and land management legislative package provides the assurances, and the safeguards, of appeal, review and environmental assessment. It is a package which guarantees the community that the planning process will be open, and that the community concerns will be registered, both through the safeguard of the environmental assessment, so the community can feel reassured that any variation to the plan will have had the appropriate environmental inquiries, and through the safeguard of the appeals mechanism.
In a comprehensive package, which contains those safeguards, I would agree with the Chief Minister that there is no difficulty with the 21-day period. However, Mr Moore's point is very valid in regard to a system which does not have those safeguards, does not have the mechanism for the environmental inquiries, and does not have the mechanism for third-party appeals. As those safeguards are absent we ought to have a longer period for public consultation because this is the only safeguard in this legislation. We do not have the comprehensive and bipartisan supported safeguards package and review package in this Bill. This Bill will stand alone. This is the only provision for consultation. I think the suggestion that the period be expanded from 21 days to 45 days is reasonable. It would not follow that the Opposition would be seeking to extend the 21-day period in the substantive Bill, which will follow part of the comprehensive package, because we accept the Government argument that in that comprehensive package there are other safeguards.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .