Page 462 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I accept that; they did a comparative study, not an overall study, so I think that was reasonable. They say on page 8 about those final political decisions, which we were all agreed on before:
Final political decisions necessarily rest upon some understanding of the effects on winners and losers.
That is the emphasis I am trying to put on today: Who are the winners and who are the losers? I have not been able at this stage to identify any winners, other than the developers at North Watson, but I have been able to identify several of the losers.
Mr Wood: This is ridiculous.
MR MOORE: But you are going to have to put up with it because you decided to play games. The report goes on:
A proposal may fail politically if it is judged to place intolerable costs upon one section of the community.
My argument is that this proposal, from what we can tell now, appears to do that. I would like to have had much more time to analyse this, to discuss it with Mr Kaine, for example, who I think has taken a very reasonable approach, and Mr Lamont and others. But the process has not allowed that, and that is why I argue that this ought to be disallowed today and then reintroduced this afternoon - I have no problem whatsoever with that - so that it can be dealt with at the next sitting of the Assembly. If there is greater good from the proposal, there may be a case for compensating some of the losers.
Mr Lamont: If it is disallowed now, it is over, Michael. You do not understand the process. If you disallow it now, it is over.
MR MOORE: Mr Lamont suggests that if it is disallowed now it is over. That is not the case. A variation can be brought back to this Assembly, whether it is disallowed or not. What I am suggesting is that that is all that needs to happen - by the Minister tabling that variation again.
Mr Lamont: How? By formally tabling the process again? You want to start the whole process for the variation again?
MR MOORE: No; simply table the variation again.
Mr Lamont: But he cannot table the variation unless he comes back to the PDI Committee and goes through the process again.
MR MOORE: Then use a different process next time.
Mr Lamont: It is required under the legislation, Michael.
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, Mr Lamont suggests that it is required under the legislation. It was not required under the legislation, although I understand that part of the Assembly committee's recommendation was the notion that this Access Economics report would be tabled after the variation was tabled, limiting the time for the consideration. On page 16 it states:
There are some substantial uncertainties in the revenue potential.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .