Page 4705 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
You could almost argue that it needs to include "Heritage" as well. I would suggest that, with a view to keeping the title reasonably tight and concise, it is not inappropriate to leave it as it is. We would not have too much of a problem if Mr Moore wanted to change it to retain "Environment", but include "Management" as well.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.13): Mr Speaker, the time that we spend debating semantics sometimes confounds me. Having heard a speaker for and against this amendment, I would have to say that on balance I favour Mr Moore's approach.
Essentially, this Bill is about planning and the management of land. It is only incidentally relevant to the environment. The only aspect of environment that this Bill deals with is that of environmental impact statements, which are part of the management process. I support Mr Moore. If we must debate the words, we could take them all out and just call it the "Land Bill" and be done with it.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (5.13): I had not expected to get involved in a debate on this. I really think that it is an attempt by Mr Moore for a bit point scoring, maybe to show how pure and holy he is in these matters.
There are ample provisions in this Bill, may I remind members, specifically dealing with the environment. I do not propose that we want to put a Bill up and always find a shorthand version of it for a title, and list the six or seven different names that we could incorporate. I think that is probably the best idea, except that I have had no more to do with it personally than many other members.
I do not think that we need to remove "Environment". For heaven's sake, the Bill says a great deal about the environment. A fundamental part of the Bill is to ensure that there is sufficient environmental protection as the planning measures are put into place. I do not think it is worth a long debate.
If you want to give a true reflection to the Bill, I suggest that you keep that environmental reference, because it is important. If you want to put in a management reference, I believe that it is already there in the planning component of it. Of course, planning is rather more comparable with management and I think the word "Planning" should stay there. If you approve Mr Moore's amendment, maybe someone will stand up and say, "Well, it is less about planning. Let us take that out. Maybe it does not refer to land either". Let us get down to the serious part of the Bill and stop this nonsense about the title.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .