Page 5550 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
these particular criteria on 16 December, if we were sitting on that day, or even the 17th for that matter, that document would not be able to be disallowed until the Assembly came back into operation again.
When we are talking about heritage matters and environmental matters, the most important thing to remember is that three months can be an eternity in this sort of area. How long does it take to demolish something if the criteria are changed by regulation? I can tell you how long it takes to demolish something. It takes a couple of hours to demolish a house. I have seen it happen in this city, and it is a bit too late, when we come back three months later - - -
Mr Kaine: We got a ball by ball description from Mr Collaery over the radio one morning.
MR JENSEN: That is true, Mr Kaine.
Mr Wood: What has that to do with this?
MR JENSEN: It is to do with heritage significance. It is to do with changing the heritage significance by regulation which would enable a change to existing criteria.
Mr Wood: Through this Assembly?
MR JENSEN: No, it is not, Mr Wood. As I understand it, unless you correct me otherwise, although it is a disallowable instrument, it still takes effect and continues to take effect until it is disallowed. For a period of three months, as I said, that particular change takes effect. When we are dealing with environmental issues - - -
Mr Wood: This is paranoia.
MR JENSEN: It has nothing to do with paranoia, Mr Wood. If you read any commentary in relation to environmental impact assessments, any commentary on the problems associated with environmental impact proposals and processes within Australia, you will find that this is one of the issues that are continually commented on - the problems associated with the time factor in relation to damage that can be done to the environment and to our heritage if these sorts of things are not properly handled within legislation as opposed to regulation.
That is why I continually argued for this to be put into a schedule while I was in government. I lost that argument there, but I have continued to argue. I continued to argue in my comments on the legislation in the joint planning and conservation committees, and I will continue to argue it here today. If we get to the situation where I have the ability to amend this legislation, as the responsible Minister, I will seek to do just that. That is a commitment I will give to the community. To us it is the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .