Page 5650 - Week 13 - Thursday, 18 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
development that is not specifically identified as impact assessable by schedule 4 or the development tables in the territory plan will not slip through the net.
The bill also revises schedule 4 to take account of the fact that, in a number of instances, studies of environmental and land use matters will have occurred as part of the development of the territory plan. As members are aware, territory plan variations are subject to a substantial public consultation process. The government believes that, where there has been major strategic planning to identify future urban areas and assess associated infrastructure needs, further extensive re-investigation required in the preparation of an EIS may not be warranted. Indeed, it may promote false expectations that a policy settled in the territory plan is open to change or subject to political pressure.
An example of how the bill caters for this can be found in new item 1, part 4.2 of schedule 4. It places the construction of a transport corridor, including a major road, in the impact track. However, this will not be the case on land that is designated as a future urban area or a transport and services zone under the territory plan.
Another example is new item 2 in part 4.3, which sets a differential threshold for the clearing of native vegetation before an EIS is required. On most land, including existing urban areas and rural and broadacre zones, the current threshold of 0.5 of a hectare is retained. However, on land designated as future urban areas under the territory plan, the threshold will be five hectares.
As I indicated earlier in this speech, the bill also makes a small number of changes to chapter 8 of the act, which deals with the process for the preparation and completion of an EIS. I have already mentioned some of the more important changes, such as the pre-application request for an environmental significance opinion from the conservator. The purpose of the changes is to make the act clearer, more effective and to give effect to the changes to schedule 4 noted above.
A common theme in submissions on the exposure draft bill was the need for the public to be kept informed of steps within the EIS process. In particular, there was a strong view that the provision of an environmental significance opinion and the reasons for it should be publicly notified. The bill therefore provides that, when an environmental significance opinion is given or refused by the conservator or the Heritage Council, a copy must be given to ACTPLA, who must prepare a notice setting out the text of the opinion. The notice will be a notifiable instrument which will be valid for 18 months. ACTPLA will be required to make the notice available on its website.
Several of the changes to chapter 8 formally enshrine in the act processes that already apply but which until now have been accomplished administratively by ACTPLA. Thus the EIS scoping document, the EIS assessment report and section 211 exemptions will all become notifiable instruments, valid for 18 months and required to be made available on ACTPLA’s website.
I recognise that the approach taken by the government in this bill will not satisfy all of the divergent views in the community about the difficult and complex task of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video