Page 4234 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If Mr Collaery would consider merely a short deferment until we can talk this through a bit off the floor of the house, we might be able to come to an agreement about how to proceed.
MR STEVENSON (11.14): I basically agree with Mr Collaery's statements. I appreciate the briefing that we were given a couple of days ago, and it is good to have a copy of the plan. I am not sure what an adjournment until a later time today would achieve. Obviously, we would not have time to read the plan by then. I would be inclined to adjourn the matter prior to agreeing with an in-principle debate, because we may not necessarily know that we agree in principle.
MR MOORE (11.15): Having spoken to this Bill and the Territory Plan this morning, even now as I go back I see other things that I did not have the opportunity to address. I had made a commitment that I would debate this matter in principle, provided that I had a copy of the Territory Plan. I was not available on Friday for a discussion as to the business of the week, so I felt that it was appropriate that I fulfil that commitment.
From glancing at the Territory Plan on pages 45 and 46, I am aware that the object of the legislation - Mr Collaery drew attention to this - is to provide the people of the Territory with an attractive, safe and efficient environment in which to live and work and have their recreation. But the strategic directions go in this order - accommodating population growth and, immediately after that, fostering economic development. Here the priorities of the plan are set out.
This is the sort of thing that people have not had the opportunity to wrestle with and understand. It is not just a question of being able to scan through this plan and understand it; it is really a question of being able to marry the plan with the legislation. I think most members would agree that the plan and the legislation are inextricably linked. I gave an example earlier about appeals; whilst appeal systems appear to be provided in the legislation, they are undermined in the plan, as I perceive it. Whether you think that is a good thing or not, I am sure members will agree that the two are inextricably linked.
Mr Collaery is quite right about a plan of this size. Remember that we have only one volume and that another volume of about the same size will accompany this but we do not have it at the moment. I think it is important, therefore, that members have the opportunity to debate in detail the plan and the legislation together. I think, therefore, Mr Collaery's motion ought to be supported. We ought not just go for adjourning it until a later hour today because, whilst we continue debating here, members will not have a chance to read it properly; otherwise, I think that would have been a reasonable concept that the Leader of the Opposition raised.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .