Page 4643 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Dr Kinloch and me in our additional comments to the Assembly committees' report. We could have had the legislation ready to commence operation by January 1992. Of course, there would have to be some changes made to that to take into account the requirements of the plan; but that is something we can come to later, in the detail stage. Frankly, they were given a much better package than they left us.
However, never let it be said that we in the Rally were totally happy with the proposals in that first Bill. I think the Bill tabled recently to amend the interim planning legislation included some areas where we had some disagreement with the Liberal planning Minister, but I guess that was always on the cards. I am sure we will get the support of the ALP to ensure that, if no change is made to the starting date for the new legislation, the very sound improvements to the interim legislation proposed recently by the Rally, which we all expected to be dead and buried by now, will be accepted. I am here talking specifically about disallowance provisions.
Now that I have disposed of the carping comments by the Government, let me move onto the legislation. There is much in the papers and legislation before us today, and to comment on all of it would take more time than I have available. I am sure we can address much of this in the detail stage. While it is difficult to know where to start today because of this, I will attempt to comment on the general rather than the specific, wherever possible. To assist me in the task, I thought it appropriate to make reference to some of the Rally policies and to see how much of our policies has been included in the Bill.
The Rally has always fought for genuinely open and consultative planning and development systems, with an affordable and accessible appeals process for those affected by planning and development decisions. While the Bill goes some of the way to meet this demand, there is still more to be done. The amendments we will move later, in the detail stage, will seek to do just that. Our policy goes even further and requires the Government to ensure that bona fide community groups are given sufficient information to enable them to provide advice to the Government at a more local level without charge. It is the old story about information: If you keep the information from the people, they are unable to assist you in the development of this most important community legislation and of the plan itself.
From a government seemingly committed to consultation, I am, to say the least, disappointed in the suggestion I have already touched on - that community groups who have a proven interest and ability to provide comment have to pay for their copy of the plan. Frankly, this is a little like saying to members of this Assembly that they have to pay for their copies and their regular updates. I trust that the Minister will review this inequitable decision. (Extension of time granted)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .