Page 5530 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 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) (3.07): Mr Speaker, the Government accepts the first of those amendments. Mr Jensen's amendment No. 33 is fine. I wonder whether Mr Jensen would accept my assurance that if this goes in, as we agree, he will need to take out his amendment No. 35. The two are not compatible, I am advised. What you are doing with your amendment No. 35 is assuming that the position will be a public servant's position. You want it broader than that, I understand. The two do not go together, I am informed.
As to the other one, the 12 months provision is a pretty consistent one across legislation. Six months, you would not be surprised to know, is not really a long period when it comes to selecting senior officers. I could not be confident even that we can fill the position of the Chief Planner, which we are about to do, within that six months. Quite a long time has been involved in organising it. All the proper processes have to be observed. There can be complications and confusions. So, the Government will reject the second amendment in this current list of amendments because in our view what is proposed is consistent with other legislation. You may comment on that third amendment. It does not go.
Mr Jensen: Yes, I will comment on that.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (3.08): Mr Speaker, we agree with both Mr Jensen and the Government on the first of those three amendments. As for the second, we agree with the Government that a 12-month period appears to us to be a reasonable time. I do not know what Mr Jensen has in mind in trying to cut it down. I do not see any objection to an Acting Chief Planner acting in the job for up to 12 months, and that is what the Bill provides.
I disagree with the Minister on the third one. The first amendment merely says that the appointee must be a suitably qualified and experienced person. That can include a public servant. I do not think we can say that no public servant is suitably qualified or experienced; there must be some who are. So, you have to admit of the possibility that that person may well be a public servant. Then Mr Jensen's third amendment is quite appropriate and apposite. It provides that, if that person happens to be a public servant, then certain things flow from it. So, I think it is not mutually exclusive and it is a sensible amendment.
MR JENSEN (3.09): That is correct, Mr Speaker. That is my reading of it. That is the reason why it is put. It flows on, I would suggest, from the first of those amendments because if the person who is acting as Chief Planner is a public servant he will continue to be paid the remuneration. If he is not a public servant, obviously some other arrangements would need to be made. I think that was the reason for that going in.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .