Page 1576 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think one can say that this whole package of legislation, because of its complexity, will continue to evolve. I think that will happen by necessity. Some of the public servants who appeared before the committees, who were the people who drafted it - especially the people from the Government Law Office - indicated in their evidence that this legislation will be amended from time to time because of its complexity and because of various court cases which might eventuate.
I was particularly pleased to see the committes' recommendation in relation to the question of third party appeals, which was to review the process after two years. This is fully supported by me and my party colleague. Indeed, in relation to those third party appeals, I believe that that is an area where there might well be a particular need to see how the legislation evolves and see what amendments are necessary.
Concerns were expressed in relation to third party appeals by a number of people who appeared before the committees. They were concerned that there was quite a lot of room there for abuse. I think that is something that has to be carefully monitored so that the appeals are in fact real and relevant. People whose interests are threatened certainly have their right to appeal protected, but not just anyone can have a right to appeal - for instance, someone who has no interest whatsoever. I think it will be interesting to see how that pans out in practice as the years go on. I think the two-year provision there is a very sensible one indeed.
I go now to a few other additional comments in relation to this draft Bill. I would say that they are reasonably minor ones. Indeed, on most of these Mrs Nolan and I, as Liberal members, were quite in accord with what was in the Bill. Firstly, clause 26 of the draft Bill deals with the consideration of the plan by the Legislative Assembly. We did not see any need for that to be altered. I think the reality of the situation is that if a controversial proposal were put before the Assembly for a six-day period it would certainly be raised for debate by opponents. And they have a number of ways in which they can do that, including MPIs, questions, putting it on the notice paper, and conducting media campaigns.
I believe that the question of any opposition to the plan could be aired, and the legitimate fears expressed by our two colleagues Mr Jensen and Dr Kinloch were perhaps more pessimistic than they necessarily should have been. I think that is a reasonable provision. Indeed, if a government were successful in allowing the effluxion of time to push through any unpopular plan, it would have to answer to the electorate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .