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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Tuesday, 4 May 2004) . . Page.. 1721 ..

I also note that the strict liability offences in this bill carry penalties of up to 1,000 penalty units, despite the fact that the Senate report into the criminal code recommended that strict liability should not be used for offences that carry a penalty of more than 60 penalty units—a fact which has been pointed out by our scrutiny of bills committee again and one that I have raised time and time again in this Assembly.

I will speak further to these concerns in the detail stage, but I want to point out that the Democrats have always supported the strict regulation of environmental offences and it would be wrong to misinterpret these amendments as an attempt to water down the act. Our aim is simply to ensure that the rights violations that have been repeatedly raised by the scrutiny of bills committee are addressed.

I understand that we have a few amendments circulating before us today. I share Ms Tucker’s concerns that a plan of management does not have the degree of detail that is required for it to be sufficient reason to displace the land penalties in this act, so I will be supporting the amendments to be moved by the Greens.

I am happy to support the government’s first two amendments, which go to extending the powers of a court to order costs for restoration work on cleared or damaged land. However, I will not support the second two amendments. The extension of exemptions from the act to all public servants and anyone else the government chooses to nominate completely undermines the intention of this act and it exempts them from a total of 18 provisions, potentially rendering those provisions ineffective in a large number of cases.

It also allows the government free rein to declare whomever it wishes to be a governmental officer, without any legislative restriction or provision for reconsideration. This is an inappropriate delegation of legislative power and the Democrats will not support these amendments, though we do support the bill in principle.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (11.59), in reply: Members have indicated their general support for the bill and I thank them for that. The bill is part of the government’s response to the illegal land clearing that was carried out some years ago by Transgrid in Namadgi National Park. Members have spoken about the extent to which that really was quite an unacceptable attitude that was adopted at the time and it did reveal significant gaps in our legislation.

The Environment Legislation Amendment Bill in essence does three principal things. Firstly, it introduces two new offences in the Nature Conservation Act of 1980. The new offences prohibit clearing of native vegetation and causing damage to the land in our nature reserves, which includes, of course, Namadgi National Park. Under the provisions, those committing these offences can be required to meet the cost of the restoration work.

The bill also introduces new provisions in the Nature Conservation Act, allowing the Conservator of Flora and Fauna and private citizens to take action in the courts to protect native plans and animals. Private citizens will be able to take this action only when the Conservator of Flora and Fauna has failed to act to deal with the issue. It also adds a

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