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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3523 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

to be able to say, "We are clean and we are getting cleaner all the time". This is worth money to any organisation. So, cleaning up their act is an investment. It is an investment in the future and it is something that I think is very important in this partnership between the community, business and government.

I have stressed in my additional comments that I believe that an EMA should be an independent body. If the ACT is too small for an Environment Management Authority, then why are we not too small to have a Gungahlin Development Authority, a Kingston Foreshore Development Authority, a Schools Authority, et cetera? The argument was put that it would cost too much and that it would be too resource intensive; but I do not believe that it needs to be any more resource intensive, because administrative support can be got from the Department of Urban Services. The need for an independent Environment Management Authority is about this authority being separate from the Public Service, and having the ear of the Minister without going through a myriad of public servants. It is very important to me that we have an independent authority, and I believe it is very important for the EMA to be able to work without interference from the department.

I have a concern also about the economic measures. I am concerned that under proposed subsection 36(2) regulations to establish schemes involving economic measures to achieve environmental protection can be inconsistent with the Act. I believe that that gives the Government too much flexibility in establishing these schemes. If these schemes can work only by being inconsistent with the Act or other regulations, then I believe the Assembly needs to be provided with greater opportunities to scrutinise these schemes. In other words, if the schemes are inconsistent with the Act, we need to look at these schemes thoroughly because they may be breaching the intent of the Act.

The other concern I have is the non-payment of fees. I did not agree with the committee's recommendation that the EMA should have discretion rather than being required to cancel an authorisation for non-payment of fees because, if an authorisation is cancelled, the applicant could not legally continue to undertake the activity. I believe that the committee's approach is inconsistent with other government processes. For instance, under the Land Act, fees are required to be paid up front before an application is assessed. I agree, however, with the committee's view that a decision to cancel an authorisation should be subject to appeal.

On financial assurances, I believe that the provision for the EMA to impose a financial assurance as a condition of an environmental authorisation is a powerful form of regulation. However, the Bill does not provide a clear indication of when financial assurances will be required. I would like to see the EMA develop guidelines on when these financial assurances will be required, so that there is some consistency; and I would like to see these guidelines become a disallowable instrument, so that the Assembly can scrutinise them.

I also have some concerns about the way some activities have been categorised into Class A and Class B. Mr Moore has spoken already about the storage of petroleum, and I am very glad there was agreement that that should be moved. I have concerns about some of the other activities and how they have been classified. Indeed, some

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