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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 3853 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

conducting an environmentally damaging activity. We do not believe that that is appropriate. We believe the public interest is safeguarded by providing for an oversight once these agreements are made. We do not accept that it is appropriate to engage third parties in the process of determining these agreements.

We will not be supporting Ms Tucker's amendment. We do not believe there is any demonstrated need for it. We will, however, keep this process under review, and if issues come to light to demonstrate that there is a need for third-party involvement, the Labor Party will be prepared to look at that. But there is no demonstrated need for it today.

Proposed new clause 7I negatived.

Proposed new clause 7J.

MS TUCKER (9.13): I move amendment No 9 circulated in my name, which inserts new clause 7J [see schedule 8 at page 3914].

This inserts a requirement for environmental protection agreements to have regard to best practice, which I talked about earlier.

MR CORBELL (9.13): As with the previous amendment relating to best practice, we see no problem with having this aspiration built into the act. The minister suggested some slight on the authority or its staff. That is certainly not the Labor Party's view. The Labor Party believes that the authority and its staff do a very good. But it is still appropriate to set these sorts of aspirational outcomes in the legislation. References to best practice certainly reinforce the intent of the legislature. We see no problem with that.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (9.14): We will oppose the amendment. It allows an environment protection agreement to provide for terms that further the objectives of the act and relevant best practice, but it does not oblige the terms of the agreement to do so and therefore adds nothing to the provisions. It is not necessary; nor is it useful.

Proposed new clause 7J negatived.

Clause 8.

MS TUCKER (9.15) I move amendment No 11 circulated in my name [see schedule 8 at page 3914].

This amendment amends the government's proposal to allow the minister to declare that some environment protection agreements do not need to be publicly notified. There are two problems with the government's clause. Firstly, the exemption from notification applies both to newspaper advertising and to notification in the Gazette. I can understand the minister wanting to reduce the cost of newspaper advertising, but I see no reason why notification in the Gazette should be restricted. I am seeking to amend the clause so that it relates only to newspaper advertising.

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