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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4875 ..

Clause 6

MS HORODNY (8.46): I move:

Page 2, line 27, before paragraph 6(a) insert the following paragraph:

"(aa) by inserting in subsection (1) `ecologically sustainable, health,' before `attractive'.".

Mr Speaker, the current wording of the object of the Territory Plan - that it will provide the people of the Territory with an attractive, safe and efficient environment - is very limited and out of step with the growing environmental awareness in the community. This amendment expands the object of the Territory Plan so that it is clear that the planning and development of the ACT should promote ecological sustainability and the health of the ACT people in the broader sense of the term. The use of these words is consistent with the ACT Government's commitment to the national strategy for ecologically sustainable development and even the Liberal Party's so-called strategic plan for Canberra, which acknowledged the need to manage the ACT in accordance with ESD principles.

MS McRAE (8.47): Mr Speaker, we are not inclined to support this amendment. We would rather put in "a socially just, a fair and an excellent community for all of us to live in". I think the Government will actually be supporting the amendment. One could choose a different set of adjectives every time that the plan comes up for amendment. I am not convinced that to call for an ecologically sustainable and healthy community is actually going to make terribly much difference to anything, so we will not support it.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (8.48): Mr Speaker, for much the same reason - because it does not make much difference either way - we do intend to support the amendment. I am not sure that the words add much, but I cannot argue with objectives which include those adjectives, so I indicate that we will support them.

MR MOORE (8.48): Mr Speaker, objectives are particularly important in an Act; otherwise, you would not have them.

Ms McRae: Add a few more. I want "socially just".

MR MOORE: I hear Ms McRae interjecting that perhaps we should have "social justice" in the Act as well. I am surprised that she did not put an amendment to that effect. I would have considered it quite seriously. I think that the extra words that Ms Horodny is putting up are quite sensible. They will enhance the Act. If we are going to dismiss them, saying that they do not matter, then why bother about "attractive", "safe" and "efficient", which are the current words in the Act? I am pleased that members are supporting the amendment.

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