Page 5701 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.53): Mr Speaker, this amendment is outrageous. Mr Jensen interjected, "Why don't you take out clause 229?". He has answered the complaints I am about to make. Clause 229 says that the Minister shall consider any comments of a person or body, each objection, a preliminary assessment, any other assessment, and a whole range of things. Paragraph (b) goes further into that.
It is true that you simply want to foul up the system. I am starting to wonder what your real intentions are. I think you want to bring everything to a stop. This is such over the top stuff as to be impossible. I can tell you that any Minister will provide all the appropriate information that is needed. You have already given us about 100 extra public servants to cover most of this stuff. That is an off the top of the head guess, and it might be over the top, too; but you are continuing to impose conditions that reflect your absolute lack of confidence in processes. I know that this is the case. I think you have a rather warped idea of things. We reject this absolutely.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 230 to 234, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 235
MR MOORE (4.55): Although it is written differently, the amendment that I propose here is exactly the same amendment that Mr Jensen has circulated. I move:
Page 108, lines 3 to 5, subclause 235(1), omit all the words after "person", substitute "may, within the prescribed period, object to the grant of an approval.".
It is interesting, Mr Speaker, that the heading of this clause is "Objections - general". Then, there on page 108, it goes straight into making those objections very specific, because it says:
Any person who may be affected by the approval of an application ...
So, it is not a general objection at all. Only the people who are actually affected and who can show within law that they are affected can appeal. I take the Assembly back to the situation of the casuarinas. It is quite logical and quite sensible that people would like to offer an objection. So, obviously, we need to broaden those objections. I think this is an amendment that Mr Wood has agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .