Page 5578 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 4 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
provide two copies, and be quite specific about those two copies. One goes to the peak environmental group, so that other environmental groups who work within that group can have access to it, and one is made available to the Library Service. I think it is a perfectly reasonable amendment, and I seek members' support for it.
MR JENSEN (5.30): I am not quite sure - and I would be interested in the comments of Mr Wood's advisers on this - whether what Mr Moore has done is reduce to two the number of copies that are going to be made available. It seems to me that that could be a bit dangerous. We could have an organisation, a proponent, who is proposing a commercial development, a commercial operation. It seems to me that the requirement to comply with environmental impact assessment legislation is a legitimate part of the operation of that business, and that is a tax deductible process. If they are required to produce a number of documents, that is a cost and it will be built into the proposal.
If the proponent wants to carry out a project, it is incumbent on the proponent to ensure that the community consultation process is properly followed. I am not sure that the provision of a couple of copies to the library will meet that criterion. I would be concerned that the proponent could do just that and nothing else. The proponent could say, "I have complied with the legislation. I do not need to do any more. That is all you are going to get". That would be a worry to me.
As I have already indicated, if you look at subclauses (3), (4) and (5), where there is information relating to the fixing of the maximum price for this copy of a preliminary assessment, the proponent is able to be reimbursed for only the cost of actually producing the copy, not for the actual preparation and conduct of the preliminary assessment. While I see what Mr Moore is trying to get at, we have to be careful that we are not restricting the availability of the copies.
I take this opportunity to reiterate my concern, particularly in relation to environmental impact assessments and statements, that if we are not very careful groups and organisations, particularly developer organisations, who have a bad record in this area will seek to avoid their responsibilities and follow the very letter of the law. I believe that they will seek to reduce the availability of information to the community so that the community is not able to comment. I have some concerns about Mr Moore's amendment, but I do not think it is worth a division.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.33): I thought Mr Moore's amendment was quite a good one, except in one respect, and I have prepared an amendment to it which is now being circulated. I had difficulty with the notion that lots of copies will be made available for inspection and purchase, which I agree with, but one organisation is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .