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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3525 ..

MRS LITTLEWOOD (continuing):

I had some concerns, I must admit, about what I thought was the reversal of the onus of proof and the powers of inspectors; but I was persuaded by my colleagues that my fears were needless. I also would like to thank Sandy MacDonald for the work that she did, and Mr Power, who did a super job. I reiterate that I really believe that the message that this report does send to the community is that we can work cooperatively. It is a balanced report.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (12.32): Mr Speaker, I want to put on the record a few comments about the report on the Bills. When I brought the legislation forward relatively late in the parliamentary process I was aware, because of the very comprehensive nature of the legislation and the fact that we are in the late phase of the political cycle, that there were considerable dangers that these Bills would be overtaken by a variety of different political and other forces. It was with some trepidation that we agreed to refer these Bills to the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, but I have to say that the outcome was well worth waiting for and it certainly achieved some quite desirable objectives.

I have not comprehensively studied the implications of all of the recommendations, but I have looked through a number of them. I think the committee has essentially been very successful in distilling the views of a variety of people putting to the committee submissions sometimes strongly opposed to the legislation. This would rank as one of the more successful exercises undertaken by an Assembly committee in an attempt to steer a course which is appropriate and balanced on a quite significant and, in some areas, controversial piece of legislation. I want to thank members for the hard work that they have obviously put in to make this possible. It is, as my colleague Mrs Littlewood indicates, an exercise in cooperation which members of the public do not often see, and certainly does not characterise the work of this place, but which in fact is integral to the success of the work that we do here. That is well exemplified in this report.

There are some matters which my department advises me need to be looked at further. I would hope that it would be possible to sit down and talk about those issues with members of the P and E Committee around the table in one of the round table conferences which have become part of the work of this place and have added to the quality of output that we have managed to achieve. Let me put on the record very clearly my appreciation for the work that has gone into this report, my acknowledgment of its success in achieving balanced outcomes from sometimes diverse points of view, and my confidence that this will be the basis for the legislation being able to be enacted in this place.

MR MOORE (12.35), in reply: In rising to conclude the debate, Mr Speaker, I have to ask members and others, "Where was the report mentioned in the Canberra Times? And why not?". It covers 100 pages and contains 56 recommendations. This is the most significant piece of environmental legislation, for heaven's sake, in the ACT since self-government, and probably for a long time. Four of us sat at a press conference and talked about the cooperative approach. You heard Mr Humphries talk about it. Those outside point the finger at us and say, "We need more cooperative government"; yet here is the Assembly operating very effectively, and what happens? The news disappears into the nether regions. The very same paper, Mr Speaker, often accuses us of not working cooperatively. It gives a big run to people who say we need a more cooperative form of government.

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