Page 5421 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
difference between the full deemed disallowance and the system that we are going to have operating after this proposal is adopted and that has been operating since the amendment to the Interim Planning Act that was approved by this Assembly.
Frankly, Mr Speaker, this is not government by committee; it is government following the advice and review of the process by the committee. Let us once again remember that this is a unicameral parliament. We do not have two houses; we do not have a house of review, and I am not suggesting that we do have a house of review. But in a small parliament such as ours it has always been our contention that the committee system provides that sort of review. As I said, I always sought to have this information referred to the committee prior to the decision being made.
Once is enough, Mr Wood. There is no requirement for it to go back to the committee. Nowhere am I suggesting that it should go to the committee twice; only once. That is all that is necessary. The information comes to the committee and it is most important. If it does not, the committee has to make a decision - based only on the submissions, on no other information - on whether it is going to conduct an inquiry.
It does not know what advice the Planning Authority has given to the Executive. In most cases, if it looks at that advice that is given to the Executive, it will probably be quite happy with it, accept it and send a note to the Minister saying that the committee is happy and has no problems. The Minister can then include that response from the committee in his speech at the time of tabling the variation to the Territory Plan, and that would normally be the end of the matter, I would suggest.
So, on that basis, Mr Speaker, I think Mr Wood's concerns are unfounded. I am pleased that this proposal will be supported by the Liberal Party, and I look forward to a positive vote.
MR MOORE (4.52): Mr Speaker, an interjection by Mr Wood a short time ago was something along the lines that he knows how long things can be held in committees. The Public Accounts Committee, in dealing with the Auditor-General's reports, on a series of occasions has simply made statements to the house about the positive aspects of the reports. I believe that, with a vast number of variations, that will be the approach of the Planning Committee. I think the fears that have been expressed are substantially unfounded. This proposal is a very positive way to open what is going on for the Assembly as a whole.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .