Page 5573 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But, further than that, I do not think we should intrude a schedule in this way. The links between the Territory Plan and this Bill, particularly the schedule which prescribes the classes of proposals requiring mandatory preliminary assessment, have been provided so that the proposal can be simultaneously assessed for consistency with planning policy, along with the requirement for environmental assessment. This assists both the Planning Authority and the proponent in proposal evaluation, and I think we have to consider both those entities, Mr Jensen. To break the integrated approach to planning and environmental assessment by severing the links between the Bill and the Territory Plan by placing this schedule in the Bill makes no positive achievement. It adds a deal of bulk to the Bill and, also of some concern, it removes the early integration and consideration of environmental matters in the development of proposals.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.11): A little while back we talked about attaching a schedule and I said that it should be in there. So, it might seem now that I am being ambivalent, because I am now going to say that this one should not be. But I think I can justify my position. The earlier one was a fairly specific statement, it was not very long and it had to do with a quite specific matter. I think it was possible to state quite succinctly the things that needed to be said and therefore it added something to the Bill.
This is a little different. What we have is page after page after page of very prescriptive information. What I am worried about - and I think that Mr Wood may well have referred to this in connection with my earlier support of the other list - is that, when you get to this length of specifying so much information and it then becomes a statutory obligation, it is more a question of what is inadvertently omitted which can cause you a lot of trouble than what is inadvertently included that can cause you trouble. It concerns me that putting a schedule of this detail and of this order of magnitude into the Bill, therefore making it statutory in nature, is likely to cause more trouble than enough.
I take the point also made by the Minister that the necessity for this in connection with the plan is one thing and the necessity for it in the Bill is another. So, I have real difficulty with the amendment, and I was hoping, again, that the Minister might explain his position. Mr Jensen made the point, of course, that if you do not put it in the Bill there is a gap. Until the plan is in place, there is a big question mark against all this. I wonder whether the Minister can perhaps ease Mr Jensen's concern and mine by telling us how he is going to ensure some consistency in the approach to the development and carrying out of these preliminary assessments unless this is set down somewhere and people know in general terms such things as when one is needed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .