Page 5553 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This legislation is now starting to get very rigid and I think that creates problems for everybody in this community. It is not a problem necessarily for one side, if there are sides, more than another side. I suggest that you should rethink this.
MR MOORE (4.01): It is ironic that Mr Wood should now be suggesting that suddenly the plan is getting rigid. Not 10 minutes ago we were debating clause 50 and he was saying that it has to be flexible. I think the argument is provided for a particular time. The amendment is a good amendment. It was moved by Mr Jensen and is supported by Mr Kaine, for very sensible reasons. There are certain areas where it is appropriate to provide certainty. That is the consistency of the argument that Trevor Kaine has put, and I accept that that is an appropriate way to argue.
In this case, where we are talking about criteria for the assessment of the heritage significance of places, surely we can set out a set of criteria that are open and available to everybody. They are clear; they are part of the Bill. That is what Mr Jensen has done, and credit to him for doing so.
If you have a problem with something in the schedule, then the appropriate method is to present an amendment to the schedule. It can be all done above board, it can be done in the open, and we can understand what the criteria are. We would not expect - I think Mr Jensen would agree - to see a constant run of changes to the criteria for heritage significance. We expect it to be fairly constant. If it does appear that there is a problem, then it is unlikely that that would happen more than once or twice as part of the teething process, in which case an amendment will have to come back to the Assembly. I think it is a very good amendment and I am happy to support it.
MR COLLAERY (4.03): I agree with previous speakers on the non-government side. Mr Speaker, I want to address the Minister in terms of the approach he is taking today. We have all heard the words "trust me", some of us more than others. Think back to Mr Wood's response on clause 50. We asked a series of detailed questions. We asked for advice. We know that he has a room full of lawyers out the back. We have given sufficient time for the advice to be brought into the chamber and we are not receiving that advice. Mr Wood has to provide to us reasons, not simply say: "Trust me; this will work this way; we will fix it up later; we can do that". We asked specific questions. We did not get clear answers.
Again Mr Wood makes a number of claims about this issue. We are going to discuss this Bill again tomorrow. It is going to take quite a while to get through. I think there needs to be a different approach. I think the eminent lawyers advising Mr Wood are in a position to answer our queries if we can slow the issue up slightly on some of the clauses.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .