Page 5687 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
be conducted, we believe that it is appropriate that at least some action be taken by the Minister to have the matter examined, because we believe that an officer such as the Conservator, because of his responsibilities, would not make such a request lightly.
What I am proposing here is, in fact, that the Minister be given some flexibility in that, if he is asked to conduct an inquiry, as opposed to an assessment, the least that he has to do is conduct an environmental impact assessment. It is on that basis that I have moved this amendment, which would amend subclause 198(1) and insert subclause 1A. This would provide a degree of flexibility to the Minister to enable him to at least direct an assessment to be made, or to establish an inquiry about any aspects of the draft plan.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.18): Mr Speaker, the Government opposes this amendment. I understand what Mr Jensen is getting at, but it is not satisfactory in its present form. Mr Jensen says that it is for greater flexibility, but in fact it provides less flexibility. Substituting the word "shall" for the word "may" does not exactly go down the path of greater flexibility. This is not right in its present form and should be opposed.
MR JENSEN (4.18): Mr Speaker, I will just respond quickly to that. It seems to me that what the Minister is seeking to do in respect of the process of conducting environmental impact assessments in the ACT is not learn the lessons from commentaries made on existing environmental impact legislation around Australia. I direct members' attention to a commentary on this area by Mr John Formby. It is entitled "The Australian Government's Experience With Environmental Impact Assessment". It comes from Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 1987, Volume 3, pages 207 to 226.
One of the key issues throughout this document is concern about ministerial or administrative discretion. He says on page 210:
... the action minister need do nothing more than ensure that any final EIS and any suggestions or recommendations made by the administrating minister are "taken into account".
Throughout the Federal Act we have this issue of ministerial discretion, and the comment about the problems associated with environmental impact assessments has always been that the bureaucracy, for obvious reasons, seemed to have some concern about giving the Minister too much power and requiring the Minister to exercise discretion all the time in relation to this. It seems to me that what is important in the protection of the environment is to remove these sorts of discretionary steps and to require proper
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .