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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4181 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The Bill retains the strengths of traditional regulatory systems but also adds flexibilities evident in more modern approaches to environmental protection. So, as well as this top down approach, this Environment Management Authority which will say, "You must not do that", there will be a whole raft of other devices which are essentially designed to promote self-responsibility on the part of ACT citizens and, in particular, corporations who work in areas that might have an effect on the environment. There will be environmental authorisations, codes of practice, and environmental protection agreements where you sit down and work out how you can operate your affairs or your business in such a way as to minimise harmful impact on the environment.

It may be that we should focus on those sorts of things when we talk about this legislation. Some might characterise this Bill - indeed, the media did so characterise it when it was first tabled - as a get tough approach on the environment. They talked about the $1m fines which corporations can be subject to if they recklessly or wilfully cause serious environmental harm. That is not the real answer. There are tougher penalties available, but this is essentially about shifting an onus. Rather than using a stick, we are encouraging people by using carrots, or offering them carrots to act in the interests of the environment.

The legislation shifts the focus of regulation to outcomes rather than to processes, and encourages moves to cleaner production and smarter ways of doing things rather than simply end-of-pipe solutions. It allows scope for newer and more innovative approaches which might offer opportunities in the future. For example, the Bill provides for tradeable permits and bubble licences to be used where appropriate. These techniques offer real scope to harness market forces to achieve environmental objectives.

Efficiency is another benefit of the legislation. Taking the building industry as an example, the Bill allows environmental authorisations to be considered contemporaneously with development applications under the Land Act, creating in effect a one-stop shop. It is obviously very important that the overlay of environmental protection we effect here not come as another barrier, another hurdle to overcome, for those businesses that need to do their job and get on with making money. Developers who enter an environmental protection agreement will not need an environmental authorisation, even for large or multiple sites. An appropriate environmental protection agreement can cover all of these aspects. Within the same industry, concrete manufacturers producing more than one cubic metre in any single batch could also avoid the need for an authorisation by entering into an environmental protection agreement. So there are real benefits to an industry if it is prepared to be proactive and consider in advance what it can do to minimise harmful impacts or to advance the cause of the environment.

At a grassroots level, the legislation introduces this concept of a general environmental duty which imposes itself on each one of us. Whether a government, a business employee, a householder, or a small business operator, the Bill recognises that it is the cumulative effect of individuals and their impact on the environment which is the most significant, perhaps, but least visible side to pollution in the Territory, particularly in a jurisdiction like the ACT. I do not personally fear that that duty will be shirked or

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