Page 5532 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR JENSEN: I move:
Page 21, line 13, subclause 46(1), omit "The Chief Planner", substitute "A person appointed to be the Chief Planner or to act as Chief Planner".
Page 21, line 16, subclause 46(2), after "Chief Planner", insert "or a person acting as Chief Planner".
These amendments flow from amendments to clause 43. My information is that the Government has accepted both No. 36 and No. 37.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (3.13): The Government agrees.
Amendments agreed to.
MR SPEAKER: We now come to Mr Jensen's amendment No. 38.
MR JENSEN (3.13): Yes, that is correct, Mr Speaker. There is some dispute, I believe, between us and the Government and its advisers in relation to pecuniary liability. As this matter has been raised by my colleague Mr Collaery, I will formally move the amendment and defer to him. I move:
Page 21, line 18, subclause 46(2), before "in", insert the words "or pecuniary liability".
MR COLLAERY (3.14): There has been considerable debate as to whether the words "pecuniary interests" include pecuniary liability. Mr Speaker, you would be well aware of that because, as you know, members of this Assembly have not always declared their pecuniary liabilities in their statement of pecuniary interests.
Mr Connolly: What did you say?
MR COLLAERY: That is a fact. I can think of one notable example where there was no declaration made of liabilities. It does not concern anyone in this chamber. The fact is that the expression "pecuniary interests" is usually taken by lay people to mean assets. The lawyers among us realise that you should include liabilities in it. Even though the law is clear, we believe that the language is confusing to all but those in the know.
We think that these people taking these appointments should not be in a position to argue that they did not know and did not declare the very large loan they owe to a company that may relate to one of the planning issues. Although the words are, in technical legal terms, superfluous, as no doubt the Attorney will agree, the words "or pecuniary liability" put beyond doubt the obligation on planners. We are not going to call upon "Diana Ditch" to assist us with this. I am sure that is unnecessary. But we believe that it should be beyond doubt. That is why we have moved this amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .