Page 1569 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, we were concerned that the report of that consultation did not reach the committees until a week ago. I think that is unfortunate. I also think we would have been assisted if we had received a copy of the Government's response, if you like, to the second round of public consultations as we did for the first round of public consultations.
The committees strongly supported the need for general promotion of the package. I think it would be fair to say, however, that the community in general - and I mean in general - does not necessarily need to understand the legal complexities of legislation. But I think it is very important that they know what the legislation means, and the committees were pleased to see that the officials who came before us are in the process of developing that sort of user-friendly-type knowledge, if you like, and information on the legislation as it is finally tabled. So I am very pleased with that.
In the general issues section of the report we deal with the issue of offences and penalties. One of the things that we were concerned about in that regard was the fact that the offences and penalties were not specifically stated. We had some difficulty in assessing whether the penalties were appropriate or not because we did not know what they were. This made it difficult to make an assessment as to the degree of their severity, as seen by the drafters. That was one thing that we had some concern about.
I think it is important, as the committees have indicated, that the cost of the package should be borne by the total community. There should not be one part of the community that is made responsible for bearing all the cost associated with the implementation of this legislation. Also, a very important factor in terms of the availability of public information to the people is that documents related to the implementation of the planning package and associated factors should be available to members of the community at a reasonable cost. If the community accepts the need for a detailed and appropriate planning and land management system, it is appropriate that the community meet some of the cost associated with it.
I would like to comment on one further important aspect of the report - one on which there was some disagreement amongst members of the committees, which has been identified in the additional comments - and that is subordinate legislation. The committees did agree, in fact, that the process of subordinate legislation should be such that no subordinate legislation should be able to take effect until the disallowance period completed. However, there was some divergence as to what should happen if, in fact, a member put a motion of disallowance on the table.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .