Page 2054 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The draft legislation has, as members are aware, been available for comment for some considerable time, in either the first or second round of community consultation. I am not even sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, given the community consultation process, that it was necessary for the committees to conduct an inquiry. When I became a member of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee the reference of the planning legislation was already one of those before it. While I do acknowledge that many good reports are handed down from committees of this Assembly, I am not so sure that I can consider this report to be one of them.
While there was only a short time for the committees to report once the consolidated Bill was available, it cannot be said that adequate community consultation did not take place, as I stated earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker. Many of the concerns expressed at the public hearings had already been expressed in those two previous rounds of consultations. There were some genuine concerns expressed by the community in relation to the planning legislation package, though some unfortunately clearly showed a lack of understanding. There is no doubt that this legislation is complex; but, if it is compared with what legislation will be replaced and repealed, then one or two Bills have to be a distinct advantage.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is disappointing that this report ended up with additional comments from all members, and it is for that reason that I do not consider it to be a good one. That is not to say that there is not much in the joint report that I support. Many of the comments, I believe, have merit. I understand that the comments in the report in relation to the title of the consolidated Bill have already been addressed and the new title of the Bill, the Land (Planning and Environment) Bill 1991, does more accurately reflect the nature of the legislation. There is no doubt that the legislative package will have to be promoted to enhance the community's knowledge and understanding, and that will need to be done with simplicity and in concise terms. I believe that the report accurately covers this area.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you have already read into the record much of our additional comments listed at the back of the committees' report; so I do not propose to address these further, except to say that there are a couple of areas that I believe should be reiterated.
The membership of the Planning Advisory Committee and the current provisions that were proposed in the legislation are certainly adequate. However, in relation to the membership of the Heritage Council, I consider that it would be a distinct advantage for one member of the committee to have business economic expertise. That discipline should be added to the ones currently listed in the section relating to membership of the Heritage Council.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .