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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (22 February) . . Page.. 177 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The committee has already held three public hearings and has scheduled a fourth public hearing for tomorrow. We have heard the issues from the Government, and we look forward to hearing now from some of the people who put in the submissions that were received. We hope that we will be able to report within a couple of weeks, because it is the committee's intention to do so as quickly as possible so as not to delay the Government's program in preparing their budget.

However, there are a number of issues that have been highlighted and continue to be highlighted. One of those issues is the one that Mr Wood raised earlier today about the North Building. It was part of the previous recommendations on the capital works program as well. This committee is looking even further into not only the North Building and the development of the Playhouse but also the whole precinct of Civic Square. It seems to us that the issue of whether or not this is an integrated cultural program is something that ought to be taken on. The committee will be reporting on that issue, amongst others, in time.

I would also like to comment on a separate reference that we adopted on the same day, and that is matters raised in the 1995 State of the Environment Report, including the Government response, when the Government response is completed. The committee formally adopted this reference after we had spoken to Dr Joe Baker. Most members no doubt have perused, at the very least, the State of the Environment Report. It is an outstanding publication. It does warrant being pursued by a committee rather than becoming one of those reports that effectively wind up on a shelf, with some fairly broad, general responses that actually do not mean that there are some concrete changes.

I think credit goes to Mr Wood for creating the position and appointing the Commissioner for the Environment. I think it was a very important environmental initiative which set an overview for how environmental issues should be dealt with. I think there are opportunities that we will have within this Assembly to use the Commissioner for the Environment for a whole range of issues. As members come up with environmental issues, they should actually think, "How should we use the Office of the Commissioner for the Environment to improve the environment?", and seek to increase the funding if indeed that is necessary. The resolution of appointment of the Planning and Environment Committee charges it with the scrutiny of environmental matters. I think the analysis of that report from the Commissioner for the Environment is an analysis of not only what we see as positive and what we see as negative but also, more importantly, what we see as the highest priorities for the Government to pursue now. This is an appropriate stage.

At a later stage, the committee will formally invite the public to lodge submissions to the inquiry and then schedule the usual round of public hearings. In the initial instance, we are awaiting the Government's response to that report on the environment so that we can assess what sort of attitude is being taken by the Government and then whether this Assembly considers that it is adequate. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

(Quorum formed)

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