Page 5025 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 11 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
could be the case. My original intention was actually to move an amendment on this part of the Bill. I have watched the reaction of the Government to all of my other suggestions, which I believe have been reasonable and sensible. They had the intention, in a bipartisan fashion, of making a better Bill. However, I have met with bloody-minded opposition to those ideas, so I think it is probably a waste of the Assembly's time to, in fact, do that, although I would like to see the issue appropriately debated.
I would specifically ask Mr Collaery whether he agrees with the Donohue approach to this particular situation, or whether he is quite happy with the notion of rejecting the plan. I presume that he has not had a particularly reasonable chance to look at this Bill, because of the way - as the Chief Minister said - that this matter has been brought on so quickly. They did not know that it was possible that the transition period was going to end. That, in itself, is an admission of the relationship between the Chief Minister and the National Capital Planning Authority. It is an admission of the inadequate relationship that he and his Executive Deputy, Mr Jensen - the menhir - have.
It seems to me that there should be a response from Mr Jensen and Mr Collaery about their reaction to this, particularly considering that I understand that their one-time executive member and certainly still strong supporter of the Rally, Chris Donohue, still supports the notion of reversing the role of this particular subclause. (Quorum formed)
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (11.33): I rise to respond generally, and briefly, to Mr Moore's challenge. The fact of the matter is that this is an interim planning Bill. It covers a period prior to the entry, historically, to the law of the Territory of the large planning and lease appeals package. It is meant as a temporary, interim planning Bill. It is not meant to contain all of the issues that Mr Moore wants the final package to contain, because to do so would, ipso facto, negate the very process that we are setting out to achieve, which is to set in place a basic framework to ensure that the principal functions of planning survive until our large package is introduced.
The issues that Mr Moore raises about possible unintended effects can be raised again in this Assembly, if and when the occasion arises, because the law in respect of the matter that Mr Moore mentioned requires the Assembly to deliberate on the topic for six sitting days. Is he suggesting that all on this side of the house would ignore a situation that he postulates? The fact is that this is an interim planning Bill. It has been brought in in the context of the delays that have been adequately ventilated here this evening, and on other occasions. Mr Moore should not raise public concern when the Government has clearly
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .