Page 4701 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: I cannot see that. We would have a process that would go on for ever and ever. I think there is a pattern of mind. I can understand it and in some ways respect it, given that the birth of the Rally was based very much around the conflict at Rocky Knoll. I believe that there is an inordinate suspicion about matters. But let us make this clear: I am delighted as a member of this Assembly, and as a person with close links to the community, that in all these matters it is the Assembly that ultimately is the decider of what occurs. For me, and I am sure for most of my colleagues in this place, that is the important feature. This legislation carries on and expands the tradition of openness of government. I had hoped that that would be recognised.
Mr Jensen made some comment about appeal provisions, but did not develop it. I expect that we will hear more about that matter in the detail stage. He was not happy with the detail that is not required in draft variations as they are being considered. He made comment on the need to get traffic safety issues appraised by the Department of Urban Services, and for ACTEW to advise on various matters. I think this is the same matter as he is proposing in a private member's Bill he has before the Assembly. In fact, the effect of what he proposes would be to limit consultation. The Planning Authority automatically consults other government agencies that would be affected. That consultation proceeds. It would appear that Mr Jensen wants to restrict that consultation to just two agencies. I can assure you, Mr Jensen, that consultation happens. I believe that it happens thoroughly. There is no need to write this into a Bill.
I have already commented privately to Mr Jensen, as I have in this Assembly, that I do not think that another of his suggestions - that is, that the Executive should forward the draft variations to the Planning Committee before they are agreed and before they come to the Assembly - is an appropriate course for the type of parliament that we run.
My colleagues Mr Connolly and Mrs Grassby commented favourably on the Bill. I suppose that is not surprising. I know that Mr Connolly paid very close attention to the Bill during the time he was the responsible shadow Minister. As a civil libertarian, he is only too interested to ensure openness of government. I thank them for their remarks. I think they appreciate the value of the Bill.
Mr Stefaniak raised the question of heritage referred to also by Mr Humphries, and of course admitted that there would be a philosophical difference between the Government and the Liberal Opposition on the renewal of commercial leases.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .