Page 986 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that assessment has their own professional credibility on the line and is not going to simply do whatever the proponent seeks.
So I think this is a more nuanced discussion. That said, the key issue for the government is to ensure that the process for assessment of that small business assessment is a robust one—that is, the process undertaken by the planning authority itself in looking at the results of that assessment commissioned by the proponent.
The question that I am keen to pursue is whether there should be the establishment of a process whereby the proponent still pays for the assessment but the assessment is undertaken, for example, by someone from a panel which is established by the planning authority for that purpose and that panel is composed of appropriately qualified entities who can undertake that assessment, thereby meeting the requirement that the proponent should pay but at the same time removing any perception—and I would argue it is more perception than reality—that the proponent is somehow influencing the outcome of that assessment to suit their own purposes.
To that end, I am suggesting that there should be a couple of amendments to Ms Le Couteur’s amendments. I have circulated those. I now seek leave to move my amendments to Ms Le Couteur’s amendments together.
Leave granted.
MR CORBELL: I move:
(1) Omit “improve”, substitute “review the operation of”.
(2) Omit “by”, substitute “including”.
(3) Omit subparagraphs (i) and (iv).
Members will see that there are some minor wording changes to the first part of Ms Le Couteur’s proposed new part (2)(c). And the more substantive change is my third amendment, which omits parts (i) and (iv) of Ms Le Couteur’s new part (2)(c). This is simply to reflect the fact that I think that in some respects the wording of part (i) is not accurate, for the reasons that I outlined in my earlier comments. But, secondly, part (iv) is perhaps a little precipitate at this point in time, given that there is a need to look at how other impact assessment models operate and what the appropriate triggers should be.
But the government is prepared to put on the record today its preparedness to look at those other two matters—that is, the process of impact assessment and what the triggers are for impact assessment—as we progress further discussions on this matter.
Mr Corbell’s amendments to Ms Le Couteur’s proposed amendments agreed to.
Ms Le Couteur’s amendments, as amended, agreed to.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video