Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Friday, 16 August 1974
Page: 1077


Senator DURACK (Western Australia) - Mr Chairman,I have amendments of a similar nature to sub-clauses (3), (4) and (7) of clause 4. They appear as amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 on the circulated list of proposed amendments. The business of the Committee might be facilitated if those 3 sub-clauses and amendments were taken together. I seek leave for that course to be followed.


The CHAIRMAN - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.


Senator Poyser - That is co-operation.


Senator DURACK -I might be able to reciprocate by not speaking for too long on these amendments.


Senator Devitt - Two minutes.


Senator DURACK -Matters will not be helped if Senator Devitt interjects or speaks at great length. I move:

In sub-clause (3), leave out 'with the concurrence of the Minister of State for Urban and Regional Development and'.

In sub-clause (4), leave out 'The Minister of State for Urban and Regional Development, with the concurrence of the Minister and after consultation with the appropriate Minister of a State', insert 'The Minister after consultation with the appropriate Minister of a State'.

In sub-clause (7), leave out ', with the concurrence of the Minister of State for Urban and Regional Development,'.

The Opposition has moved these amendments because the Opposition believes that it is quite wrong in principle that the Minister for Transport, who is the Minister responsible for administering this Bill, should have to obtain the concurrence of another Minister in carrying out some of the major items covered by the Bill. Our amendments are designed to eliminate the necessity that the Minister for Transport should have not only to consult with but also to obtain the concurrence of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development in respect of the programs initiated under the provisions of this Bill with respect to urban arterial roads and also certain other projects. It is said that this concurrence is necessary because of the interest of the Minister for Urban and Regional Development in such matters as urban planning. No doubt it would be wise for the Minister for Transport in making administrative decisions to consult with the Minister for Urban and Regional Development on aspects relevant to that Minister's portfolio. But, in our view, it is completely wrong administratively that the concurrence of 2 Ministers should be required to approve a project. A type of Roman consul situation is established to permit the provisions of the legislation to be carried out. We think that is wrong. The amendments are proposed for that reason.







Suggest corrections