Page 2971 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On this particular one he chose specifically to exclude it; so, he actually took a positive decision to say, "No, we do not want the Assembly to review this particular thing". I would be very interested to see why it is that the Minister felt that that was the appropriate one to exclude from the scrutiny by the Assembly. Heaven knows, if he gives a good enough answer I would not be surprised to see Mr Stefaniak withdraw his amendment or some of us not support it. But at this stage it seems to me that it is a logical and normal process that the Assembly have the ability to scrutinise those things.
I might add that the Assembly has dealt with this ability to amend such disallowable instruments particularly carefully and it has been very rarely that the Assembly has actually moved disallowance of any regulation. I think it is worth while that we take care when dealing with them and we understand that the Assembly has shown that it deals with them carefully. It is appropriate for the Minister to explain why he thinks the Assembly ought not have that responsibility. Madam Speaker, overall, then, I would like to add my support to the Bill in principle and say that it is appropriate that it be brought before the Assembly at this stage.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Heritage and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (10.56), in reply: Madam Speaker, I thank members for their support and their recognition that this is a most significant issue. This conclusion to this Bill today ends a very long period - I will stress for Mr Humphries's sake - of consultation with the community. If you look at the other matter that has been debated with this, the draft Bill - the paper I put out well over a year ago - this has been circulated through community groups, through the scientific community and very broadly. There was a very long list of people to whom this was sent, and in typical Government form it has been widely touted around the community. Let me acknowledge that we have benefited very considerably from the input that has brought. It is a very important step forward in the protection of our important species in the ACT.
Mr Moore, in particular, has raised an important point about interim conservation orders. We acknowledge this, and it is proposed to amend the Land Act, which is the more appropriate place to do that, to cover the problems that Mr Moore might envisage in that area. That is to be done as well; so, it will be tying in very emphatically with that.
The amendment and the Independents' questioning relate to the exclusion from the disallowable instruments of the scientific criteria which will determine a lot of decisions. It is eminently logical that the Flora and Fauna Committee that is to be established is to be an independent committee, is to be expert, and its criteria are to be scientific and objective.
Mr Moore: And subject to review.
MR WOOD: Scientific and objective as well, and subject to review. Let me say that I have great confidence in this Assembly, but future Assemblies may not be as environmentally aware as this one; and to have this as a disallowable instrument would allow the potential for a future Legislative Assembly to override criteria that have been scientifically and objectively established.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .