Page 5551 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
most fundamental aspect of the need for this sort of very important information to be maintained and controlled by the Assembly, not by ministerial or Executive fiat, subject to disallowance, as is the case here. That is why we will continue to move for these very important criteria to be included as part of the legislation.
I also understand that there is some division within various groups of parliamentary counsel around Australia about schedules versus regulation. I think some concern has been expressed in the past about the amount of information that goes into regulations. I will give you a prime example - the environmental assessment Act, a Federal Act. Three-quarters of that Act is made up of regulations. Most of it is as prescribed. There is very little at all in the actual legislation.
That is one of the concerns and one of the issues raised when people talk about the deficiencies in the environmental impact legislation that applies in the Commonwealth. There are very few pages; it is all regulations. That is what people are concerned about.
When we are talking about heritage, when we are talking about environmental issues, it is too late, Mr Wood; the damage has already been done and it cannot be returned. Once an endangered species is lost, that is it - bust, finish, the end. Once a heritage house is lost, that is it as well. It is gone; it is finished; it cannot be replaced.
I think we have seen enough examples, not just in Canberra but throughout Australia, of where these sorts of attempts have been made to get around very important aspects related to heritage. If we are serious about protection of our heritage and our environment, it is important for this sort of information to be clearly laid down in legislation which requires exhaustive debate before being changed rather than being able to be changed by the swift stroke of a pen, be it by Mr Wood or anybody else.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (3.57): In this case, and I will not take quite as long to say it, I agree with Mr Jensen. I think that his amendments ought to be adopted, and my reason is very simple. One of the objectives in putting this new Bill on the table was to inject into the process an element of predictability. Therefore, there should be as little left to individual decision from time to time as possible. Removing the ability of a Minister simply to determine something and putting in the Bill the criteria which would govern the Minister's decision anyway is a good thing.
I had some reservations when I first saw the criteria. My first question was: Whose criteria are these? Are these Mr Jensen's criteria and where do they come from? I then spent a considerable time going through his proposed schedules. This particular one seemed to me to be a very
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .