Page 5586 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COLLAERY (6.03): Mr Speaker, when we interjected and said "sold a pup", what we meant was: Had the words "directly affected" been explained to the Minister? His own Labor Party platform and policy is to allow the widest possible grounds. The words "directly affected" import a narrowness that the bureaucrats in this town have always wanted to impose upon those of us in the community.
The words "directly affected" mean that the conservation council itself cannot claim to be a party unless its headquarters or something to do with it adjoins the affected property. It is an antithetical clause that has been fed in there and that will have long-term consequences. It reduces what is called the locus standi of the parties back to the narrow grounds that we fought for so many years to knock out. Since the Minister appears to be consulting further on the matter, I will hold my comments.
MR MOORE (6.04), by leave: Mr Speaker, presuming that the world's fastest photocopier can do its task at the rate at which it normally operates, we could be here to any hour. I have accepted what Mr Wood has proposed as a compromise and I will move that amendment. I should point out that it has always remained within the power of the Minister to arrange this. I have not changed that in my original proposal, I should point out. The effect of that amendment will be that the clause will now read:
The Environment Minister may, by giving reasonable notice to the proponent of a proposal that has an environmental impact and any other person the Minister believes on reasonable grounds to have an interest in the proposal, convene a meeting of such persons for the purposes ...
I think that that is perfectly acceptable because it does not preclude the Minister from inviting other people, whereas in its original form people who had an interest were not able to be there.
I think it is important to take that case of the casuarinas again. It would have been very difficult to show that you had an interest in those casuarinas, particularly a direct interest, and that you would be directly affected by those. It would be quite easy for the conservation council, as an example, or somebody who is an arborist, to indicate that they did have a direct interest in that particular proposal. So, Mr Speaker, I urge members to support this new amendment. I believe that it is appropriate for me to withdraw my original amendment.
MR SPEAKER: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .