Page 5451 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
have Cabinet endorsement before we lost office. Anything in here is a matter of debate, and would have been a matter of debate in the Cabinet had we remained on the fifth floor.
In connection with this particular matter that Mr Jensen is so hot on, what we are trying to do at the moment is get into place an Act that will streamline and simplify the planning process. As part of that, we have already agreed that the Assembly and its committees will be included in that process, and there will be plenty of scrutiny of what the Planning Authority and the Minister are planning to do. Mr Jensen is suggesting that we now set up a whole new hierarchy.
Mr Jensen: So, we are going to abandon every advisory committee in the ACT?
MR KAINE: No. We are not talking about every other advisory committee. We are talking about a particular one that you want to get on the books. Let us be clear. During your remarks you talked about advising the Minister. Your own document that you want to incorporate in here does not say that it advises the Minister. It says, at proposed new section 49C, that it advises the authority. It does not say that it advises the Minister at all.
Mr Jensen: Yes. The Minister is going to take note of that, isn't he?
MR KAINE: Read your own document. It does not say that it advises the Minister; it advises the authority. You propose giving it very wide-ranging powers, either at the authority's request, or of its own motion, to advise them about matters relating to planning in the Territory. That is any matter; any matter at all.
Mr Collaery: But it is only advisory.
MR KAINE: Well, you are setting up a whole new mechanism. One of the things that your proposal lacks is any reference to a secretariat for this body. You have not told us whether you will provide a secretariat or not, and what that is going to cost; and we are talking about cost here. We already understand that putting this Bill into effect - I have said it before - is going to impose a significant cost on the taxpayer.
Mr Jensen: Did you forget about that?
MR KAINE: If you want a one-to-one debate on this, Norm, we will go outside and do it; but you have had your say. Why don't you let me have mine? We will get into a one-to-one debate somewhere else.
The fact is that you are proposing an advisory body which itself is going to attract cost because you say that the members shall be paid remuneration. So, it is not a voluntary advisory body - it is not a freebie for the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .