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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 3857 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

the public notice from the authority after the review was completed. This seems inconsistent with other provisions in the act which require new authorisations to be subject to public consultation.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (9.25): We oppose proposed clause 9C. It would insert yet another consultation process into the act requiring the EPA to conduct public consultation in relation to review of accredited authorisations. This is yet another unnecessary level of bureaucracy when there is absolutely no problem with the existing process.

MR CORBELL (9.26): Consistent with a number of other proposals that Ms Tucker has put forward in her amendments, this amendment again seeks not just to have an oversight process but to have an engagement process for third parties. The approach that Ms Tucker is proposing would allow third parties to be involved in the review of environmental authorisations, which is a review of an agreement between the Environment Protection Authority and a particular industry or operator.

I think it is entirely appropriate for the public to have oversight of what the outcome of that review is and to see exactly what has been agreed between the authority and the particular industry or operator or business, but I do not believe it is appropriate to have a requirement for third parties, people completely outside that process, to be part of the negotiations in reviewing the authorisation.

Again, the public interest is served by oversight, by people being able to see exactly what is in the authorisation and what the result of the review of the authorisation is. But the public interest, I do not believe, is served in any way by simply allowing a third party, an outside party, to be engaged in the review and to provide comment on the review. The Labor Party will not be supporting the amendment.

Proposed new clause 9C negatived.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11.

MS TUCKER (9.27): I move amendment No 18 circulated in my name [see schedule 8 at page 3914].

This amendment relates to section 76B of the act. Clause 11 of the bill seeks to change the time line for auditors to submit annual reports on audits of contaminated land they have undertaken. The act currently specifies 20 working days. The government wants to change this to 60 days, with the justification that this is the time line in the equivalent New South Wales legislation.

My understanding is that the equivalent New South Wales legislation, the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, on which this clause is based specifies 60 days whereas the Environment Protection Act uses the words "working days". I think the right number of working days that is equivalent to 60 normal days is 40 days.

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