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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 3856 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

We will not be supporting this amendment. Ms Tucker, in proposing a complex series of processes when no problem has been identified, simply distracts the Environment Protection Authority from the broader range of tasks it has to undertake and ties it up in a very complex process, to no apparent end. In these circumstances, we will not be supporting the amendment.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (9.22): I am pleased to hear that. You either have the officers in the office assessing or you have them out in the environment protecting. The new clauses Ms Tucker proposes would make wholesale changes to the process for granting environmental authorisations.

The consultation period would be extended to 40 working days for each application, and the EPA would be required to consider the submissions it receives. The changes are not necessary. The current provisions are sufficient. There is generally no interest in these authorisations. There is no need for the extension of a resource intensive process. Valuable resources should be used wisely on the ground. As has been said already, there is appropriate oversight. The government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 9A.

MS TUCKER (9.23): I move my amendment No 14, which inserts a new clause 9A [see schedule 8 at page 3914].

This inserts a requirement for environmental authorisations to have regard to best practice, a matter I talked about earlier.

MR CORBELL (9.24): As with previous amendments inserting the term "best practice", we believe this amendment is appropriate and we will be supporting it.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (9.24): This amendment can go through. I do not believe it adds anything to the power in section 51(b) to impose conditions. It is superfluous, but the words are not disagreeable.

Proposed new clause 9A agreed to.

Proposed new clause 9C.

MS TUCKER (9.25): I move amendment No 16 circulated in my name, which inserts a new clause 9C [see schedule 8 at page 3914].

This amendment sets up a new process for public consultation on reviews of environmental authorisations. These reviews normally occur annually or, in some cases, every three years. Currently they are conducted solely by the authority with no public input. The only the way the public would know about a review would be through seeing

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