CONSUMER CREDIT (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1995

Debate resumed from 22 June 1995, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

LAND (PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT) (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1995

Debate resumed from 22 June 1995, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR WOOD (4.07): Mr Humphries will not be surprised to learn that the Opposition is supporting this Bill, as we will support the next three Bills to come forward.

Mr De Domenico: They are great Bills.

MR WOOD: They are great Bills - Mr De Domenico is correct - and they are Bills that I am certainly familiar with because I did get involved in their preparation at a certain stage. In the intervening period the Minister has done nothing to damage those Bills.

This Bill transfers to the Land Act responsibilities from Acts now to be repealed. The provisions are sensible. They deal both with mining and with soil conversation. With soil conversation in particular, it is important that we have these provisions. The problem of erosion of soil is one of the more significant ones in the ACT. Many people think we are not particularly a rural community. That may be the case; but there is ample evidence of significant soil erosion around the Territory, whether in the urban areas, in the rural areas or in the nature park areas, and we need these measures to ensure protection. I am pleased to see this legislation proceed.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.08), in reply: I thank Mr Wood for his support and the Opposition for their support of the Bill. It is important that we ensure that if we have provisions protecting elements of the environment - water quality or soil from erosion, whatever it might be - we ensure that those mechanisms are up to date, are effective and can be used quickly in the event of a significant threat to the environment. It is quite clear, from 35 years of existence, that the Soil Conservation Act did not provide that mechanism, since it had not been used at all in that time, and that it is quite appropriate, therefore, to repeal it in favour of more effective provisions.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .