Page 2530 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 15 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is not the fault of the Rally that we have no planning legislation or appeals system to operate in conjunction with it; it is the fault of the minority Labor Government opposite. I need not remind the Assembly that it was only after some hard questioning by the Rally that the Chief Minister finally agreed to honour, at least partly, a commitment she gave to us back in June.
What is proposed in this motion is a system that not only fails to take note of accepted procedures for the development and production of environmental assessments but also takes the whole process out of the public arena and into the world of commercial-in-confidence. We have seen how useful this concept has been to a minority government which appears to have sought to exclude the community from the process.
This proposal, Mr Speaker, allows for the advisory council to make decisions for the Minister on whether or not an environmental impact assessment is really required. However, I must acknowledge that, while the proposal does not seem to understand the process of environmental assessment, it at least recognises that an environmental assessment should take into account more than just the flora, fauna and landscape; it should also take into account the people and the quality and comfort of their lives. One must give credit where credit is due.
Before moving on, let me remind members that an environmental impact assessment is the end result of a staged process. The first stage provides for a statement - not an evaluation - to be carried out by an expert, who should be at arm's length from the proponent and the Government.
Mr Moore: That is what is proposed.
MR JENSEN: You will get your right of reply, Mr Moore. In stage two the public is able to comment on the statement. In stage three a final statement or assessment is produced for the decision makers to make their decision. This proposal allows for a decision on whether an environmental impact assessment or statement is needed to be made by an advisory council in a recommendation to the Minister.
This decision is not open to appeal by any of the parties involved. It is just as important for developers to have an opportunity to seek to appeal if they do not believe that the decision to require an EIS is not justified. Conversely, it should be possible for third parties with an acknowledged interest in a particular project to have a right of appeal. I see no avenue for appeal in this proposal for the environmental advisory council.
This is the sort of problem that inner city residents faced until they finally decided to take an issue to the Supreme Court, a forum which all parties acknowledge to be totally
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .