Page 2018 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 198.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (8.38): I will be opposing this clause, in line with all our other amendments regarding use of development [see schedule 2 at page 2099].
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.39): I move amendment No 75 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 2065].
This amendment, which will amend clause 198 (1), is a minor clarification of wording. This clarification was needed because of the new global definition of “use” in clause 7 (a). However, there is no substantive change.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 198, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 199 to 204, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 205.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (8.39): I will be opposing this clause. Mr Speaker, sometimes it is a good idea for you to look up. Even though we are not on the cheat sheet we often have something to say.
MR SPEAKER: All you have to do is call out.
DR FOSKEY: The Greens believe that clause 205 is another area where too much discretionary power is being vested in the minister. Similar powers have been abused in other jurisdictions where out-of-date studies, which only marginally address the contemporary development proposal, have been used as justification for fast-tracking development approvals. This clause presumes that the planning minister either possesses or will call upon sufficient environmental expertise to make a competent decision as to whether an EIS is sufficiently comprehensive and up to date.
This function should divulge the appropriately qualified surviving staff of the environment minister, but it does not. It is vested in the planning minister, who will make a decision under section 205 without any regulatory guidance and without any AAT appeal rights to temper his or her judgement. This provision is not out of place in this legislation, but again it should be safeguarded by checks and balances, appeal rights, committee referrals and open standing appeal rights provisions.
There should be an obligation on the minister to provide a statement of reasons. This is nothing more than he or she would have had to produce if the legality of the decision was challenged in the Supreme Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. It would reassure the community that the decisions were taken with due regard to all relevant considerations, and that the relationship between the proposed development and the previous study was legitimate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .