Ms BURNET (Clark) – Honourable Speaker, I rise to speak on the adjournment of this debate and support the member for Clark, Mr Bayley, in relation to very obvious reasons why this is important to adjourn. We have an active case in the Supreme Court which really should be quite separate as a process in relation to what we are discussing today.
I am quite staggered to be here and have such poor process occurring in Tasmania’s parliament. We are trying to push a bill through and yet there is good reason why we should not be considering this right now. We should be adjourning it, as Mr Bayley has suggested, and it is about that separation of process at least.
We have heard some straw-man arguments from the leader of government business and we have had the arguments put forward that those people who have suggested this from the law school are not providing valid information, but we have experts from constitutional law backgrounds, environmental law backgrounds and administrative law experts. I will quote from their submission about due process for law reform:
In a system of representative and responsible government, parliament makes an amends laws in the public interest. Where a review of law is necessary, the government must clearly identify its shortcomings or problems with the operation of law and engage in public consultation, including with legal and other experts, on the nature of these problems and the best manner in which to address them, including by appropriately balancing all relevant interests.
Conducted in that manner, law reform processes enhance public confidence that parliament acts in the interests of the community as a whole and that new laws are based on well-considered justifications.
In contrast, this bill is merely accompanied by a short announcement on the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s website for a two‑week period for public submissions. There is also no indication the public submissions will be available on the government website.
It goes on:
The fact that the statement of the department’s website indicates that a position paper on a comprehensive review of the State Coastal Policy will soon be released further increases the perception that this bill is rushed through to preempt the Supreme Court’s judicial review of the Robbins Island wind farm proposal and provide special dispensation from the law to an individual developer.
Honourable Speaker, we should not be supporting this law as it is. We should at least wait for the decision from the Supreme Court, which is why the adjournment is a particularly good idea at this juncture.
