Page 4788 - Week 15 - Thursday, 8 December 1994

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

I think that most groups would support the general import of the Bill. I note the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's report on the question of why the declarations in proposed new subsections 16(1) and (2), which are in clause 5, do not appear to be made disallowable instruments. The Minister's presentation speech clearly indicated an intention to make those amendments disallowable instruments. I suspect - and I would like the Minister to address this - that it is because that question has been covered by the amendment Bill No. 1, which has already been passed and which, by virtue of section 23E, makes an instrument made under sections 16, 17, 21 or 23C a disallowable instrument. So, because that Bill made anything under section 16 a disallowable instrument, I assume that there is no need to reinstate that in this new amendment Bill No. 2, which does provide, in clause 5, for new subsections 16(1) and (2). Provided that that is the case - and I assume that it is - that would satisfy the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's report.

There were some problems. When I read through the Bill I thought that the proposed section 43 was a bit draconian and might cause difficulties for rural lessees. Indeed, that is correct. I was contacted on Tuesday by Mr Alan Anderson, on behalf of the rural lessees. I have spoken to Mr Moore and Mr Wood in relation to that. Mr Richard Arthur, a barrister-at-law and also, I think, a rural lessee, has suggested a few amendments, which I understand the Government is quite happy with. Mr Moore will be moving an amendment to the new subsection 43(2) to add a further subparagraph, to read:

At present, as the Act stands, if there were a fire which went through a rural lessee's property, it would simply have to lie there, and the lessee would need a licence to move it. Rural lessees would not be able to use wood on their land for fence posts unless they had specifically grown the trees. That, clearly, was not the intention of the drafters and the policy makers. Accordingly, this amendment is a very sensible one. I understand that it is supported by all sides. It certainly satisfies the legitimate concerns of the rural lessees.

With that proviso and with that to come, I will indicate in advance the Liberal Party's support for that amendment, and that we find the Bill generally a welcome addition. I would make one further point, and I think the Minister will make reference to it. Mr Arthur stated that in proposed section 43 the words "remove" and "removal" appear, but the only definition is of the word "removal". However, Mr Wood and the Government drafters assure me that "removal" and "remove" mean the same thing. If that is the case - and I think that the Minister is going to make reference to that in his closing remarks - that satisfies Mr Arthur's concern. Once again, I thank Mr Wood, Mr Moore, Mr Peter Harrison from the department, all the other departmental officers and the rural lessees who contributed to making what should be a most effective piece of nature conservation legislation.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .