Page 3832 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Bill proposes that the duration of the current licence period of 12 months be extended to three years. In pursuing this question with the officers of the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning, I was told that a licence granted for three years would be considered in the case of the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre and the major land fill sites in the ACT and in respect of a number of large developments in greenfields areas in the ACT. While I appreciate that that certainty needs to exist for major players who rely on the granting of licences, from the point of view of their need to commit themselves at times to major capital works and development infrastructure, I have not yet fully explored the advantages which will be gained by these players in relation to the proposed amended processes. I would like to take the time to ensure that the ACT community will be better protected as a result of the Government's proposed amendment to this section of the Act.
To me, issuing licences for a longer period - three years rather than 12 months - indicates a lessening of scrutiny by government authorities, rather than improved scrutiny, as the Minister's speech indicates will occur. To quote the Minister's presentation speech briefly:
Pending the development of our integrated environment protection legislation, I am proposing a number of amendments to the Act which will improve its administration and ultimately improve water quality in our lakes and rivers. These amendments are: Extending the maximum term of a waste discharge licence issued under the Water Pollution Act from one year to three years ...
This is one of a number of amendments that the Minister outlined in relation to this Act. Also during my briefing, officers from the Pollution Control Authority indicated that the administration of these matters would be more effective with more resources. It gives me cause to speculate whether increasing the licence period from one year to three years would result in more effective scrutiny of the discharge of waste in the Territory. Madam Speaker, I have raised these issues to seek information and clarification of the Government's intentions, and I will certainly endeavour to address the issues prior to the final Assembly sittings for this year.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Heritage and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (8.33), in reply: Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. I will respond in a little more detail on another night, because I will be adjourning the debate shortly. Ms Szuty has perhaps taken the wrong line in wondering about the one-year licence changing to a three-year licence. As I see it and as it will be in operation, that is really a toughening of the requirements. If you look at some of the major work undertaken by the Lower Molonglo water treatment works, you will find that they require a quite large amount of capital expenditure, and we need to know what they are going to do as we give them a licence over a three-year period. It gives us a facility to be tougher on them, rather than just offering a year-by-year licence. It means that we can give a licence knowing what an outcome will be, whereas in doing it on a yearly basis we cannot take a more visionary look and we cannot impose stronger requirements on them to get a desired outcome.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .