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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1896 ..

Canberra at the last election, is that appeal rights should be restricted to those people who are immediately and directly affected by a decision. That is in the policy. I know it does not suit your rhetoric that that was in the policy, but that is what was in the policy, Ms Tucker. So next time, before you make a wide, sweeping allegation such as you made, check your facts. I wrote that policy. I know what was in that policy, and I can assure you that the position of open standing was not in that policy.

The proposition before the Assembly is that, in relation to a specific project, the minister can determine that certain decisions are not open to review, subject to the scrutiny of this place. It can be refused or vetoed by this place through a disallowable instrument. I would have thought that that was exactly the sort of thing the Greens would expect in terms of the legislature keeping a check on the power of the executive.

MRS DUNNE (10.50): I will comment on some of the things said by Mr Corbell in both of his rants. Mr Corbell, of course, comes late into this debate. He was not here and did not participate in the debate last Tuesday, when we thrashed out the problem of what is wrong with a disallowable instrument in this case. It is really a matter of chronology.

For instance, next Monday, if this blue piece of legislation were to come into effect, the conservator could issue a licence approved by the Minister for Environment by virtue of disallowable instrument. Because we do not sit for another four or five weeks, that disallowable instrument would not come into this Assembly until mid to late June, by which time the destructive activity could already have taken place. It is a matter of chronology.

For instance, the conservator and the Minister for Environment could make these determinations and issue these disallowable instruments in the last week of December, and we do not come back till February. The destructive activity could have taken place already, and there is no check and balance.

Ms Tucker: What?

MRS DUNNE: Yes, there is a check and balance but, because of the chronology and the timing with which we sit, a whole lot of activities could already have taken place and we would be disallowing something, if we saw the need to, that had already taken place. This is the difference between this proposal and what Ms Tucker is talking about—what is currently here.

The reason why the Liberal opposition does not want to take out these provisions and create exemption provisions for third party appeals in this legislation is that in the Nature Conservation Act, since it was passed in 1980 until now, there have not been exemptions for third party appeals. This is a fundamental and in-principle change to this legislation, and you do not do it at 11 o’clock at night when there has not been—

Mr Hargreaves: It could’ve been 11 o’clock this morning if it hadn’t been for that other nonsense.

MRS DUNNE: Well, it could have been 11 o’clock this morning and there still would not have been discussion in the community about the nature of the bill. This changes the

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