Page 2285 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 1 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
clause in the case of this project is granted to allow the developer to display waterfowl and other animals, the responsible Minister assess the environmental impact of such a change and allow that assessment to be tabled in the Assembly for a period of time sufficient to ensure full public comment.
I want to touch on some other matters which became clear to the committee in its deliberations. First, the dire lack of full and proper environmental and planning legislation in the ACT must have contributed to some of the uncertainty surrounding the course of proper procedures in respect of this project. The committee recommends that such legislation be considered as soon as possible by the Assembly and that it contain a requirement that an assessment be undertaken of projects which have a potential impact on the amenity of the community environment, with the level of assessment to be appropriate to the potential environmental threat posed. The committee felt that henceforth large developments such as the National Aquarium project should be brought to the attention of the Assembly or one of its relevant committees before an offer of a lease is made.
The second matter of concern deals with speculation surrounding the project and comments made by, or attributed to, in particular, the Federal environment Minister in respect of the project. It has been repeatedly suggested over recent months that the Federal Government would consider conducting an environmental impact statement under its Federal environment Act if it were dissatisfied with the outcome of the inquiry, the report of which I now present. It was suggested in particular that the original advice I earlier referred to, of DASETT to the developer, that an environmental impact statement under that Federal Act would be unnecessary, is no longer relevant given a significant change in the nature of the project since it was originally approved.
The committee found that a basis for such assertions simply does not exist. Among the papers supplied to the committee was a file note dated 17 March 1987. It recorded a meeting by an officer of the department with Mr Da Deppo. The note clearly records Mr Da Deppo's confirmation that the commercial fish production component of the project had been dropped. Clearly, in these circumstances, the emphasis of the project became that of tourist facilities and the display of fish and crustacea in relation to those facilities. In that respect nothing has changed between the date of that file note and today; that is, the project is still substantially a tourist venture with the object of providing visual displays and associated tourist facilities.
It was in light of this essential characteristic of the project that the Federal department decided on 24 March 1987 to advise Mr Da Deppo that the project would not require an environmental impact statement under the Federal
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .