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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4884 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

likely that every single one of those PERs produced the sort of information that was necessary and happened to fall in line with what the proponent needed. There is absolutely no basis in logic for immediately rushing to the Minister paying for getting the PER done.

When you look at the detail of this amendment, you start to run very rapidly into deep water and complications. I think it deserves at least six months or more of discussion, as we have had with the other changes that Mr Humphries foreshadowed in March of 1996. We should leave it be, take on board the perhaps legitimate concern that arises from a proponent being the one that commissions and pays for the PER and start to look at alternatives that may make the process more satisfactory.

In arguing that, I do not accept that there is logic in the argument that every PER that has been paid for by the proponent is biased toward the proponent. I do accept that in the areas of planning and land management we deal very frequently with public perception, interpretation, and reinterpretation which is often mischievous but unfortunately a reality. Given that those public perceptions and the capacity for mischief exist, then we have to try to pick up every single one of the issues that concern them, try to create a process that is as transparent as possible, destroy things that are simply impressions and get back to cold, hard logic and straight good management practices that say, "Do not be silly. It can never be and it will never be that we are only dealing with biased PERs". In the way that PERs are done, they do not stand as the last word. Further advice is given on them before a Minister makes his decision. In the case that we witnessed here last week there was even public scrutiny. In addition to the advice given to the Minister, we were able to put in our two bob's worth.

It seems to me that we are not dealing with anything that has yet been proven to be a problem, but we are trying to deal with something that may be a problem. I think that we should proceed with the rest of the Bill and not put these amendments through tonight but put them on the table in the same way that Mr Humphries put the issues on the table in March 1996. Next year, when we are looking to further amendments to the Land Act, perhaps we can pick up the changes by legislation, by ministerial practice or policy or by some other process. I do not think it necessarily entails a legal change to put in the types of changes that are being thought about. I would like to see a range of options to deal with this perceived problem, and, when I have had a chance to think about the different alternatives, then I would be much more inclined to support a legislative change or back up some sort of policy or management change that is put in place by the Minister or his department. At this point I do not think that this amendment deserves support. I acknowledge that for some people there seems to be a problem, and on that basis I urge the Government to take these issues on board and deal with them in an appropriate way.

MS HORODNY (9.28): Mr Speaker, again the argument that is being put forward is that there is a standard around the country and that in the ACT we are simply complying with that standard. The real question is: Is the standard that is being followed around the country adequate? Why should we necessarily comply with it if it is not adequate? I would suggest that it is not adequate, because the same problems arise all around the country. The issue of environmental assessment presents a real problem when the proponent commissions a study. It is an ongoing problem, and it occurs all around the

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