Page 457 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore: But he has only just got the report; he has to put the two together.
MR STEVENSON: That is right. Notwithstanding that Mr Kaine says that it is being done at the very last moment, the matter has been going on for a long time - - -
Mr De Domenico: Months.
MR STEVENSON: Mr De Domenico, if we allow this motion to go through without allowing debate on the disallowance motion, it does not give time for an analysis of the Access Economics report.
Mr De Domenico: The analysis of the analysis.
MR STEVENSON: Exactly. Is it not an important report?
Mr De Domenico: Do we have another analysis of the analysis of the analysis?
MR STEVENSON: Once again, one can say that, but there are a large number of people that have concern. Mr Kaine says that there is a statutory law which states that something should be done in a certain number of days. I suggest that whenever these things prevent fair consultation we change them. There is no valid reason - - -
Mr Kaine: I suggested that that was the remedy. Are you going to change it today?
MR STEVENSON: No; obviously it should be changed after. I made the same point. I would say that the time is too short. However, we have the power in this Assembly to make sure that there is sufficient time for the community to read and evaluate the Access Economics report and have it analysed. There is no reasonable reason not to allow that to happen. That is certainly what most people in the community would feel, I believe, on any such matter.
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement on this matter.
Leave granted.
MR MOORE: The process we are talking about is one that I certainly am not critical of. The Planning Committee's very thorough investigation into this matter is not under consideration. Access Economics, being an appropriate body to carry out that investigation, is not under consideration, is not under criticism. We have a statutory process which Mr Kaine has commented on, and Mr Stevenson has also commented on it. But there is a simple way around that statutory process which in some ways is being tested. The Planning Committee's suggestion of this Access Economics report being tabled after the variation has been tabled makes our time to consider such things much too short.
One simple way around the process is to disallow this variation now and allow it to be tabled again this afternoon. I have no objection whatsoever to that. It is not a question of rejecting this variation outright; it is a question of understanding that we are saying that we are not yet ready to deal with this variation because we have had this report for only a matter of days during a sitting week.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .