Page 5582 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Amendments negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 123 agreed to.
Clause 124
MR JENSEN (5.50), by leave: I move:
Page 57, line 29, paragraph 124(1)(a), omit "and purchase".
Page 57, lines 36 and 37, subclause 124(2), omit "and purchase".
Page 58, lines 1 to 25, subclauses 124(3) to (6), omit the subclauses.
I do not think I need to comment any further on these amendments. We have been through this argument before.
Amendments negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 125 and 126, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 127
MR MOORE (5.50): I move:
Page 59, lines 4 to 8, subclause 127(1), omit all words from and including "The" to and including "persons", substitute "The Environment Minister may, in relation to a proposal that has an environmental impact, by giving reasonable notice in a daily newspaper, convene a meeting of persons who have an interest in the proposal".
The way the clause is currently worded, the Environment Minister does not have the ability to act in broad consultation. Under this amendment, the Minister can contact people he believes, on reasonable grounds, to have an interest and who will be directly affected by the proposal.
I think it is important to draw an example, and it is one I may use again. There was some concern not so long ago about the casuarinas next to section 52, the Boulevard theatres, when the development of a hotel, which did not proceed, was going ahead. As it turned out, the developers did the right thing and made it quite clear that they would move to preserve those casuarinas. Had it been the other way round and had the Minister wished to consult, I think we would have been in strife. There is nobody who could really claim that they are directly affected by the removal
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .