Page 5457 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 42
MR JENSEN (6.48), by leave: I move:
Page 19, line 32, omit "Minister", substitute "Executive".
Page 20, line 3, omit "Minister", substitute "Executive".
These are very simple amendments. We are proposing, in both these subclauses, to omit the word "Minister" and substitute the word "Executive". I will speak very briefly on this, because my colleague Mr Collaery wants to make some comments.
We believe that an appointment to a position as important as this should be made not just by a single Minister but by the Executive; that is, by at least two members, as it is currently set up. I would expect that an appointment as important as this would probably be made by the Cabinet meeting as a whole. It may be that the instrument signed to appoint the Chief Planner would be signed by two Ministers. The Rally believes that because of this it is important for the Executive, and not just the Minister, to appoint the Chief Planner. On that basis I hope that the members of this Assembly will approve these amendments.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (6.49): Mr Jensen began by saying that these are simple amendments and I agree, if we use one of those dictionary definitions for "simple" meaning "silly". We all know the practice of things. We all know that over and over again in our legislation we see the words "the Minister shall". We all know that in a case like this, especially a significant case like this, I take matters to Cabinet - not just to the Executive, but to Cabinet.
Mr Moore: Yes, but we might have another Alliance Government, and what a disaster that would be.
MR WOOD: Well, Alliance governments are few and far between. I do not think this makes any practical change to anything at all. These matters will be attended to by Cabinet and the Minister will then go away and formally carry out what the Cabinet agrees. Here and there in legislation, I understand, you may see "Executive", and that is in matters where perhaps commissions are appointed, or quite significant things.
I understand the importance of the measure here in this clause, but the reference to "Minister" is simply routine. It does go through Cabinet. I do not think, short of changing a large number of Acts, Mr Jensen, that there is any sense at all in this. It is simply not required. It makes me wonder about the intentions of the Rally; tying down things like this, tying up debate. More and more I just do not know how serious you are about getting this through.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .