Page 2022 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Decisions about environmental impact assessments such as this should be properly taken by an agency that has responsibility for and expertise on ecological matters. Unfortunately, the ACT’s ecological expertise took a heavy hit in the last budget, as the Costello report apparently found that we could not afford to maintain such an unprofitable function at its previous level. This legislation moves in the opposite direction. It takes power away from other agencies, boards and community organisations and centralises it with ACTPLA and the planning minister.
Many people in the community who speak out and take exception to developments do so because they have the kind of expertise that we are talking about. They may be bird lovers, as in the case of East O’Malley. The minute community activists speak out they are often seen as pests. This legislation is a salutary case study of an exercise in empire building.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (8.52): Whilst I disagree with much of what Dr Foskey said, I have some sympathy for her position on this. I would like to hear a bit more from the minister, specifically why it would be burdensome for him to have to present each of these EISs to the Assembly.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.52): I am pleased to be able to provide that information. Essentially, it comes down to consideration by the Assembly, and it is dependent on available sitting days, sitting patterns and available times. So the impact track process could not continue while the EIS was awaiting consideration by the Assembly.
For example, during the recent winter recess, when we did not sit for about 10 weeks, there would have been significant delays to that process. It would certainly work against the overall desire for these reforms to create a simpler and faster planning process. That is why the government believes what is currently in place is the best way forward.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (8.53): Has the minister considered using the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment as it exists in between Assembly sittings?
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (8.53): No, I had not considered it at this point but I am happy to look at it in a subsequent review of the legislation. I will not be making amendments on the run tonight but I am happy to consider those issues in the fullness of time.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (8.54): I think that issue could be considered in the future. As it stands, I accept the minister’s explanation and will not be opposing the clause.
Clause 220 agreed to.
Clauses 221 to 225, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Proposed new clause 225A.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .