Page 1959 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 16 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (5.38): I agree with my colleague Mr Westende and Mr Moore, and I support this Bill in its entirety; but I do have some problems with its implementation. The Minister introduced this Bill into the Assembly on 13 May and on 27 May he announced that the Commissioner for the Environment in the ACT would be Mr Joe Baker. I do not know whether anybody else here thinks that there is anything wrong with that, but I certainly do. The appointment was made and the Bill has not even been passed by this Assembly. I certainly have no problem with the choice of the commissioner - Mr Baker is well qualified for the position - but I do have a problem with this Assembly being used as a rubber stamp. I appreciate that Mr Baker's position is officially titled "Commissioner Designate", but to all intents and purposes he has moved to Canberra already and an office is being established for him. I suggest that this action is really a bit premature, given the status of the Bill before this Assembly.
Say, for example, that this Assembly passed an amendment today that said that the Commissioner for the Environment had to be a woman, or that the position had to be full-time, or that the commissioner had to be a specialist in environmental waste, or blue-green algae, or something like that. What would the Government have done then? Certainly, they would have looked very silly.
Mr Connolly: Retrained.
MRS CARNELL: Retrain Mr Baker. Mr Baker would have had every reason to be just a little bit annoyed, having just made quite substantial changes in his life to move here. This is not a trivial matter. In fact, it is a quite serious situation. This Government has used the Assembly. Why bother putting a Bill through the Assembly at all if the Government has already made a decision?
Mr Connolly: So you do not want us to consult on these appointments?
MRS CARNELL: I am not criticising the choice of the commissioner. The point I am raising actually has nothing to do with the Commissioner for the Environment. The point I am making is a matter of principle and it has everything to do with the right and proper use of this Assembly. I do appreciate the Minister talking to our party about the appointment - I believe that his action needs to be praised - but I really do take exception to the public announcement of the commissioner before the Bill has been passed in this place. I strongly urge members of the Assembly, and most especially the Government, to take note of what I have said. This Assembly should not be used in this way. I am sure that everybody who knows anything about parliamentary procedure would agree with me.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (5.41), in reply: Madam Speaker, I thank members for their endorsement of the proposal and the comments they have made. It is certainly the case, as demonstrated by this Bill, that the Labor Government regards the environment as of paramount importance. We are continuing to take a whole range of measures to ensure that the environment receives the treatment that it deserves. Tomorrow, for example, I will be bringing down very significant amendments to the Nature Conservation Act in order to take further steps to see that endangered species and communities within our boundaries are protected. So, once again, we are demonstrating our very strong commitment to the environment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .