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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2659 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

(a) that notice of an assessment or remediation of the land has been given to the appropriate person; or

(b) that the Authority is carrying out the requirements of an assessment order or remediation order in relation to the land.

'(2) A notice under subsection (1) shall -

(a) invite the person to whom notice is given to make written submissions to the Authority within 21 days beginning the day after the day the person received the notice; and

(b) state the places at which a copy of any of the following documents may inspected:

(i) a report of the outcome of an assessment under subsection 91C(1);

(ii) a progress report on the assessment under subsection 91C(3);

(iii) an assessment under paragraph 91C(4)(a);

(iv) an audit under paragraph 91C(4)(b);

(v) a report of the outcome of an assessment under subsection 91D(1);

(vi) a progress report on the assessment under subsection 91D(3);

(vii) an audit under paragraph 91C(4)(b);

'91EB. Certain documents to be available free of charge

The Authority shall -

(a) make available for inspection by any person free of charge a document mentioned in paragraph 91EA (2) (b); and

(b) on the request of a person, give a copy of a document mentioned in that paragraph to the person free of charge.".

These amendments address a serious problem in the Bill regarding a process for undertaking assessment and remediation orders. At present these orders may provide for public notification and consultation by the person to whom the order is given but it is not mandatory. Again, this provision is not as good as the mandatory requirements in the New South Wales legislation. In response to this criticism in the committee report, the Government said that in almost all cases the requirement to consult with neighbouring property owners would be included in orders. If this is the case, then why does the Bill not require this? My amendments make this consultation mandatory rather than optional, and it would appear that they are not inconsistent with government's claimed views on this issue.

The Bill also leaves any notification and consultation requirements to be undertaken by the person receiving the order rather than by the EMA itself. This is a recipe for problems, as was found in the implementation of the Land Act. In the past proponents of development did their own public notification, but this was found to be so poorly and

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