Page 5592 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
been widely said in the newspapers that I would be in Cooma that day and bureaucrats chose to visit my place and poke around in a wardrobe and waste government money on a non-issue. So, Mr Berry, you want to know those of us who fought real battles. We have not seen you at many real battles, have we? You have been driving the bulldozers, not standing in front of them. Is that not correct?
Let us face it; these provisions are offensive to many of us who have had the sting of the unbridled government that swept this town in a certain era under a certain adviser. The fact is that the provisions have been opposed by the ACT Law Society, and they have been opposed by me previously. We stand opposed to them. They are too much for what they seek to do. I agree completely with Mr Moore. They are appropriate in the Royal Commissions Act and the Inquiries Act - Acts introduced by the Alliance. They are not appropriate to this. They can be misused. Similar powers, much weaker powers even, have been misused for political motives in the past.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (6.24): Mr Collaery is right in what he said. I can say this because I have noted the considerable concern about the clauses we are now debating. For that reason I have taken particular interest. It is the case that a referral was made back to the Attorney-General's Department, questioning this clause. The information that came back to me was that there was one reservation and that was that the panel could initiate a warrant without going through the magistrate. That was modified to the provision we now have in the Bill. Other than that, the Attorney-General's Department said that there were no problems about civil liberties in the Bill.
It does look draconian, I agree, in these simple terms; but let us look at the circumstances in which these clauses would be used. They are not used for normal planning inquiries. I think someone suggested that they would be. That is a misreading of the clauses. The inquiries are inquiries into potential or actual environmental impacts. The inquiry provisions are included in Part IV of the Bill for that reason. The intention has never been to provide for inquiries into building design and siting applications. Let me repeat that: The intention has never been to provide for inquiries into building design and siting applications, but to inquire into impacts on the natural, social, built and economic environments of major import, major factors and major concerns.
Inquiries may deal with sensitive issues where it may be in the public interest to obtain information if it is being withheld from the inquiry and is necessary to an inquiry making proper recommendations. The need for these actions would have to be ratified by a magistrate before the powers could be exercised. That was the one change that was made. The power of search and entry has been provided to protect the public interest, not to invade the privacy of individuals on trivial matters.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .