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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1882 ..

into account what the Conservator of Flora and Fauna says. There will be input from the scientists in the wildlife and research monitoring unit. However, although the same people may be involved, there is not the same requirement in this process or in this decision-making framework to emphasise the protection of the nature reserve.

When a decision about a licence is made, the sole decision-maker is the Conservator of Flora and Fauna, and the sole criteria for decisions are the guidelines for the nature park and the nature conservation plan. The government is concerned that this means a second layer of bureaucracy, but this is forgetting the purpose of the nature reserve. If we cannot say that the most important consideration in a nature reserve is the protection of nature, then I think we are seriously missing the point.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (9.37): The government will not support this particular amendment. Paragraph 60I (c) would make land clearing lawful if it is in accordance with a development approval under the land act.

If work that includes land clearing in a nature reserve requires development approval the land act requires that the Planning Authority consult with and take into account the comments of the Conservator of Flora and Fauna. If the land clearing is greater than half a hectare there would also be impact assessment under part 4 of the land act, a process the conservator has significant input into. This means that the conservator has two opportunities to assess the project, have impact into how it will be approved and what steps would be required to minimise impacts on nature conservation values.

What paragraph 60I (c) does is provide that, after the conservator has provided input and had appropriate conditions imposed one or two times already through a development process, there is no further need for the proponent to seek further permission from the conservator to carry out the work. The proposal by Ms Tucker and the Greens to remove the paragraph, which would serve to add another layer of administration to projects that require development approval, would not add any value at all to the process and on that basis, the government opposes the amendment.

Question put:

That Ms Tucker’s amendment be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

MR SPEAKER: The sitting is suspended until the ringing of the bells.

Sitting suspended from 9.40 to 9.54 pm.

MR SPEAKER: We were in the middle of a division. We will ring the bells to call the division again.

The Assembly voted—

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