Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - I have enjoyed listening to the members and I appreciate the briefings this morning and we have all put on record so far that it has appeared to be a bit rushed. That puts me out of my comfort zone somewhat, but we recognise legislation is as good as it is, until something is challenged. That is not unreasonable, in practice that is what happens. This legislation from 1985 has stood the test of time until a recent case has created some concern and the Government, rightly, has said, this could be a problem, we are not sure, but if it is going to be a problem we had better make certain that we have our ducks in a row so it does not flow over to other decisions.

It is the same if you have a piece of legislation that is 190 pages long, it is only one clause until it is challenged. We find that a lot, especially in the local government land through planning - it creates a lot of issues. I go back to the member for Murchison when she said this is a possible issue which may be valid or may not be, but if there is a problem we need to address it to ensure the possible issue regarding the delegation of authority. I was really pleased we were given the two instruments, I am not going to table them, but they are just small minute words on a piece of paper. Somebody has then thought, 'Oh, hang on. They could be challenged' and that is what is happening, I think.

Ms Forrest - The power of the written word.

Mr GAFFNEY - It is a minute part of the whole process and suddenly what was deemed appropriate in 1985 may not be appropriate now in 2022. As we know in the legal system, people will take those things to task if there is a weak point. That is where those people who may be opposed to a certain thing may see that as a weakness and they may home in on there. I was a little bit surprised in the debate when it was a suspension of Standing Orders about whether we should take this through. I had no issue with the wording of the bill, actually I was comforted that it seemed fair and reasonable. I do not think the process needed to be rushed. I stand with the member for Murchison about the third reading, it is ridiculous to think it has to go through today. There is no reason for that, it is not going to impact anybody and the fact is that instead of having three days sitting we have had basically three hours.

On both sides of our forest industry debate, there are people who will flare up possible worse scenarios and using things that are outside what this is about. It is fair and reasonable that people will say if we do not do this now, this and this may happen. That does not stand the pub test. In this one we have a specific incident in the north-east that needs to be addressed, but I think the Government is thinking, we are not sure what the outcome of that decision is

going to be but we want to make certain the construction of that road over there or the clearing of that over there, which is fair and reasonable, can continue without fear of something.

When it was pointed out to us in the briefing there was this specific issue regarding the instrument delegation, then through that process there were perhaps a few others with that particular circumstance. A lot of these things from 1985 are done and dusted. There is no concern there unless it was, you can grow your trees for 45 years or something. We need to make certain we focus on the bill in front of us, what it is intended to do, what it should be doing and not let scaremongering get in the road. We need to think, okay, here is an issue, let us fix it, be comfortable with it and let us move on. OPC would have taken a lot of time with what they have done here, because they do not want to see happening in 20 years time somebody else coming in, which may or may not happen.

I am supportive of the bill. I am disappointed it has been rushed through and that is how it appears and with members not having a chance to fully do their job. That is not to say, member for Launceston, I am not suggesting for any moment we are not doing our job but it feels as though if we had a bit longer, we could have gone to a few other people to ask their advice. People within our network about how they see this panning out. What could be some of the pitfalls? What are some of the areas we need to be concerned about? What are some of the questions we should be asking on the Floor? To a certain extent I have nobody from my community contact me about this bill, so that is heartening.

Ms Forrest - No one would have seen it.

Mr GAFFNEY - Nobody would have seen it. However, I will suggest if there are people concerned about it we will be contacted tonight, so that should at least give us a chance before the third reading tomorrow to make sure we have got any other information we need. I would be very disappointed if the Government tries to rush this through tonight. I will support the bill, but with those reservations about the process.