Page 5585 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: You want to extend it into a broad public meeting. If you vote this down, you will be removing a good, specific proposal to try to resolve matters. In subclause (2) there is reference to the outcomes of the meeting. You can see the design built in there for some resolution to be effected. I do not have any objection to calling public meetings. I or someone else as Minister will be able to do that. It is not a problem.
We are not saying, and I do not believe that I said so when I first spoke on this clause, that we are against consultation. If we had headed this clause "Round-table conference", maybe Mr Jensen would not have baulked at it.
Mr Collaery: You will see; you have been sold a pup.
MR WOOD: I can never overcome this conspiracy theory. I do not know that I can ever argue around that. Why do you not acknowledge that in these procedures it is a sensible measure to get the parties together? Mr Jensen, there is no inhibition in this legislation on my calling a public meeting. I repeat: That can be done, and this is not a crafty design to prevent that.
Mr Jensen: Have a careful look at line 7.
MR WOOD: I am not talking about this. This clause is not designed as a public meeting clause. Will you understand that? On the second occasion that I rose here, I started by saying that this was a specific clause for a specific purpose. We are just a little confused about it. I do not know offhand what the explanatory memorandum said, but it might have explained the purpose of this. It is nothing like being sold a pup. It is an accepted way, a good way, of working through procedures. You are taking it wrongly and you are going to mess it up if you carry on.
MR MOORE (6.01): Mr Speaker, I think I should reply to Mr Wood in this way: Originally, when I approached this particular clause, I had suggested that what should be deleted was the words in line 7 where it says "the Minister believes on reasonable grounds to have an interest that would be directly affected by the proposal". I was going to remove that and say "on reasonable grounds to have an interest in the proposal". Why is it that it has to be narrowed down to "directly affected"? That really is the important point.
If he were prepared to accept that we could simply delete "that would be directly affected by" and insert "in the" - it would read "have an interest in the proposal" - then I think that would be acceptable because that still allows the Minister to decide - - -
Mr Wood: I can accept that.
MR MOORE: In that case I will circulate an amendment to that effect, Mr Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .