Page 5448 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (6.20): I am, as I understand it, speaking against the motion of postponement. This makes me wonder about Mr Collaery's intentions and whether he really wants this legislation up at this time of the Assembly or not. He must have known, when he jumped to his feet and used those inflammatory terms, that it would spark a debate that we do not need, right now, when all we want to do is get on with this legislation.
Mr Collaery, you have been part of the discussions. You know that all members of this Assembly are negotiating and talking to each other about what is agreed and what is not agreed. You know that I have been doing this now for some time. You are negligent in that because your party has been the slowest of all in coming back to me and has created quite severe difficulties in dealing with this. To stand up and talk about machine politics is absolute nonsense and, as you have found out, is resented by all. Let us defer this now. Let us get back to the debate about an advisory council. Then we can get on efficiently, shortly, with subsequent clauses, and get this Bill done - if it is your intention ever to get this Bill through this house.
Question resolved in the negative.
MR JENSEN (6.22): Mr Speaker, I move:
Page 18, line 25, add the following subclause:
(4) The Authority shall perform its functions in consideration of any advice received from the Planning Advisory Committee established under Division 4A.".
We will have a debate about the need for a planning advisory committee. I presume that is what we are about.
Mr Speaker, provision for a planning advisory committee has long been the policy of the Residents Rally. It was put in the Residents Rally's policies on which we stood at the election. Just in case there is any worry about it, I had better read it into the record. Mr Wood seems to think, for some reason or other, that our decision or our requirement to have this planning advisory committee has something to do with party machines. What my colleague Mr Collaery was talking about was the apparently pre-emptive nature of the response. In the past we have adopted a practice of passing over clauses like this and then coming back to them later on. I think that is really what my colleague was talking about.
The Rally policy on planning quite clearly said:
The requirement for community consultation and the Liaison Section to be included in the legislation that establishes the Territorial Planning Authority.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .