Page 2031 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
More importantly, historically, improvements to rural land have involved activities like land clearing which these days would no longer be automatically seen as an improvement. In my opinion, especially in the ACT where we have so little of it, clearing of remnant native vegetation would represent serious ecological vandalism. This clause does not make it clear that this type of activity is unacceptable. The other part of the problem is that this part of the bill, 9.8, also makes the territory automatically liable for paying the lessee compensation for these so-called improvements if or when the lease expires. Given that each lease already contains a provision in it with specific reference to that piece of land and its purpose, I cannot see any reason for keeping an out-of-date fallback clause in the act.
I also understand there have been departmental discussions around this definition and that there could be agreement on a more refined definition, so that it read something like “any earthworks, planting or other work that affects the landscape of the land that is reasonably undertaken for rural purposes”, which I would be happy to support. It has been pointed out that land clearing is already prohibited or regulated through the terms of the lease, the land management agreement and other approval requirements. However, I cannot see why that should preclude an out-of-date definition from being revised to ensure greater clarity and consistency on such an important issue.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (9.24): The government would be quite happy to support an amendment from the Greens along the lines that Dr Foskey has just read out. So if Dr Foskey would like to move such an amendment, I will happily support it.
Dr Foskey: I would move it now but I—
MR SPEAKER: We really need to have something circulated.
Dr Foskey: Yes. I would rather think a little more about that definition. That was just a proposed definition.
MR SPEAKER: You would not be interested in doing that later on?
Dr Foskey: I could do it later on. Do you want it tonight?
MR SPEAKER: Yes.
Dr Foskey: I could do it now. It would certainly be an improvement on the current definition.
MR SPEAKER: We really need to have it written and circulated.
Dr Foskey: Okay. Let us do that.
MR SPEAKER: At the end of the bill you can ask for this clause to be resubmitted.
Dr Foskey: I am sure everyone will be delighted!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .