Page 2447 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 30 July 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
portfolio to be introduced and responded to by a more relevant minister or if there is a joint responsibility.
The bill makes a few very minor amendments to the Environment Protection Act. These amendments clarify the distinction between an assessment and an audit of assessment, and remediation and audit of remediation, which had become blurred. Further, the Environment Protection Regulation 2005 has been refined to amend the rules regarding the development of sites of less than 0.3 hectares without erosion and sediment control measures if these measures are a requirement of the development approval.
The Nature Conservation Act, too, has a number of amendments. These include the explicit inclusion of exceptions to some offences where a licence has been granted under section 303 of the act, as well as a minor refinement of the definition of “influential person” within a corporation.
My personal favourite amendment in this bill is to clarify that directions about how an animal is to be kept once seized by a conservation officer are limited to living animals. I assume that this step followed what I can only assume was an amusing story; however, I have been reliably informed that this is a preventative step, not an unfortunate discovery.
Finally, a single word change in the Stock Act provides greater flexibility for the director-general in disposing of impounded stock within 14 days of notice being given to the owner. This means that, should an owner have the desire to reclaim their animal but be unable to do so within the 14-day window, the director-general may grant a small extension allowing the owners to reclaim the animal or may dispose of the animal at auction. This change also brings the provision into line with other powers under part 5 of the act.
I will move to the amendments to the Planning and Development Act. The bill covers a range of areas and I will confine my remarks to areas specific to the Planning and Development Act. Firstly, I would like to genuinely thank Minister Gentleman for the opportunity to receive a briefing on this bill. That was extremely important and it was most appreciated by my office and by Ms Lee’s office. We thank you for that.
We do not have a great deal to say on the planning aspects of this bill, as they are very much a refinement of technical structure and consistency of provisions. The adjustment to extend the interim effect default period from 12 to 18 months is sensible, given that draft plan variations must be referred to a committee for review.
The adjustment of section 76 to incorporate reference to section 74(2) refines and clarifies the minister’s responsibility to take action and hence improves the functionality of that section. Likewise, specifying a time limit of 12 months within which a land rent scheme must be paid out is not unreasonable.
The last adjustment to the Planning and Development Act is a reasonable one also. In our view, a clause to prevent development approvals expiring before ACAT decides
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video