Page 5581 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 122
MR JENSEN (5.45), by leave: I move:
Page 56, lines 12 to 26, paragraph 122(1)(b), omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraph:
"(b) specify where, in the opinion of the Environment Minister based on reasonable grounds, the environmental impact of a proposal which is the subject of another defined decision is relevant to the environmental impact of the relevant proposal - sufficient details of the first-mentioned proposal to enable the proponent to assess the potential combined effects of the proposal.".
Page 56, lines 27 and 28, subclause 122(2), omit the subclause.
I proposed some changes to paragraph (b). What we have before us is a recommendation that was given to me by the officers from the Law Office in relation to what would achieve my aim. All we are talking about in the amendment is a saving of time. If a proponent has been required to do an environmental impact assessment and seeks to modify the project, and there is another related project, this would allow the proponent to have to conduct only one environmental impact assessment. What we are really talking about is deleting subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) from this clause.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (5.48): This is one of the problems we have when we move rather quickly through things.
Mr Jensen: Are you complaining now?
MR WOOD: You left everything so late; you drowned us with amendments at the last minute.
Mr Jensen: You drowned me with lots of other work, Mr Wood - lots of planning work.
MR WOOD: You cannot avoid that problem. If we had a chance to sit around a table and talk in detail about this, my advice would be that you are simply removing a few useful clauses and replacing them with an amendment that duplicates what is in subclause 120(2). You seem to be taking us backwards in this matter. I was not able to hear all that you said, but you might look at that and think about it. We are opposing it. We think your concerns, such as I heard, are more than adequately covered. This amendment shows one of the difficulties of rushing things towards the end, and I would ask you to think about it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .