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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1885 ..

fuel management plans, not the licensing provisions under the Nature Conservation Act. Let’s do it in the right place. If Ms Tucker wants to bring in amendments to that end, I would be happy to consider them. But this is not the place and this is not the time.

The points made by the Chief Minister and Minister for Environment are apposite. What Ms Tucker has done is created a circular system of approval. If the conservator approves the bushfire fuel management plan, then she would have to again re-approve every single action under that on reserved land. It is an unnecessary approval and the opposition, which is ideologically opposed to red tape and repetition in bureaucracy, will oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (10.06): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name on the white paper [see schedule 3 at page 1914].

Item 1 substitutes a new subsection 60K (2). The new subsection 60K (2) allows the court to order a person convicted or found guilty of a land clearing offence to pay to the territory the cost of restoration of the damage caused and monitoring of the outcomes. This order would be sought where it was considered inappropriate for the offender to be required to do the restoration themselves due to their competence to carry it out or the sensitivity of the area.

This amendment is designed simply to ensure that people who are inappropriately qualified do not, rather than pay an award of damages, attempt to restore areas of natural value themselves, and it is designed simply to protect an area of land that might otherwise have been degraded.

MS DUNDAS (10.07): Just briefly: I understand that this amendment extends the ability of a court to order that an offender against the provisions of the bill must pay the costs of any restoration work on the damaged area conducted by the ACT government. This is a sensible extension of the court’s discretion, and the Democrats support this amendment. I will foreshadow that Mr Stanhope’s second amendment that also addresses a similar issue is one that we support.

MRS DUNNE (10.08): The Liberal opposition will be supporting this amendment and, I foreshadow, will be supporting his amendment No 2 as well. These are sensible provisions that extend the powers of the courts from imposing fines and are in many ways similar, in spirit at least, to the new provisions in the compliance legislation in the land act. They give a sort of an extra arrow in the quiver of the courts and the conservation authorities to ensure that remedial works are done, that they are done by appropriately qualified people and, in ensuring that that has happened, the territory is not out of pocket for negligence. We support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MS DUNDAS (10.09): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 4 to 6 circulated in my name together.

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