Page 454 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I believe that they have done all of that. The problem is, of course, that they have done it in a fairly short span of time. That time is determined by the statutory requirement that the variation referred to, once tabled, proceed unless it is disallowed within five sitting days. That meant that today was the last day on which a disallowance motion could be moved, and it was necessary that this report be available for people to examine before that time elapsed.
There is a complaint, and a legitimate one, that there has been inadequate time to properly consider this report. That being said, and to save Mr Lamont from having apoplexy, the fact is that there is a statutory requirement that it be dealt with in a certain timeframe. That, in hindsight, may be undesirable; but, if that is the case, the solution is to amend the Act. Maybe this is the test case that should lead to some consideration of whether five sitting days of the Assembly for a disallowance is an appropriate period.
The fact is that the Government, and indeed this Assembly, are bound by the law. The law says that there are five sitting days in which this shall be done, and today is the last day, under that statutory prescription, on which the Assembly can consider this matter. I know that Mr Moore will deal with that later, and the disallowance motion can be dealt with on its merits. So far as this report is concerned, and that is what we are discussing at this moment, I believe that it does fairly and accurately and adequately take into account the factors that should have been taken into account.
Those people in the community who are opposed to this development have already presented to me a couple of counterarguments to this report. One of them is by a very eminent person, Professor Neutze. One cannot lightly set aside comment and advice made by such a person, so I would like to deal with a couple of the things the professor has said, in the context of the whole process and what has been going on. First of all, I think it should be noted that Professor Neutze has said:
Access Economics' study uses sound methods in its assessment of the economic implications of the alternatives.
In other words, he is not questioning the methodology. On almost every area of dispute, he says, the methods used by Access Economics have been those argued for by the Watson Community Association, they being the people who are presenting the negative case on this. So Professor Neutze confirms the fact that Access Economics have used the appropriate methodology. He further notes:
I have a number of critical comments to make about the Assessment but, lacking access to the basic data, I cannot estimate how much they would affect the conclusion.
In other words, he is saying, "I have some criticisms, but I cannot say to what degree my criticisms, if taken up, would affect the bottom line of the assessment".
Mr Stevenson: The data could be made available.
MR KAINE: That is the argument that is being put forward by the community. The Government can argue its own case, but I point out that this debate has been going on for a long time, and Professor Neutze has expressed an interest on one or two occasions on the periphery of this debate. If he had been so inclined, he
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .