Page 5621 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is what we are doing on planning matters. It really is quite extraordinary. It is totally over the top. If it really is such a serious matter - Mr Wood has already said that it will be used only when it is such a serious matter; he has already indicated that to us - then establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act.
Mr Wood: But you may not know at the outset of your inquiry that that is going to be required.
MR MOORE: I appreciate the interjection because it saves us standing up and sitting down and so forth. Mr Wood interjects that you may not know at the outset of the inquiry that you are going to need to do this. But surely the need, in terms of the sort of inquiry that we have established, is simply not there. Why, on the one hand, would an inquiry along these lines require an investigation of this nature into somebody who is objecting? I cannot think of a single reason.
Why, then, would we need to use it for somebody who is proposing a development? It might be, for example, a perfume factory out at Hume or something along those lines. One of those was debated here in this Assembly a couple of years ago, as I recall. In that case it is a very simple matter to say, "Unless you provide the information, sorry, your development is not going ahead". You have the greatest of all of those levers. The only reason the person is involved is that they want to get their development up. So, they can provide the information. There simply is no need to provide such extensive powers, and this Assembly should be very careful where it applies extensive powers.
Mr Berry: You have said it about four times, Michael; we are supposed to be hurrying it.
MR MOORE: Mr Berry interjects that I have said it about four times. That is quite right. I did so, because it is such a significant matter.
MR STEVENSON (11.37): Mr Berry did interject and say that Mr Moore had said it about four times. I think Mr Moore was quite right in saying that it needed to be said - and said again.
Mr Berry: It would be for you, Dennis, but not for anybody else.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Berry says that it would be for me and not for anybody else. The logicality of the remark - - -
Mr Berry: You are a bit slow off the mark sometimes; that is all.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .