Page 1957 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 16 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
COMMISSIONER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT BILL 1993
[COGNATE BILL:
OMBUDSMAN (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993]
Debate resumed from 13 May 1993, on motion by Mr Wood:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MADAM SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill 1993? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 1 they may also address their remarks to order of day No. 2.
MR WESTENDE (5.30): Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party supports the Commissioner for the Environment Bill 1993. Whilst, initially, we had some concern, as we had assumed that the commissioner had been appointed before the Assembly had had a chance to speak, that matter has since been rectified. We have been advised that it was an interim appointment.
Without question, environmental issues will become more and more prominent as we seek to find the balance between maximising our economic opportunities and safeguarding our environment. Thus the term "sustainability" - to integrate our social, economic and environmental goals. The appointment of the Commissioner for the Environment in many ways translates this theory, this desire, into practical terms, even if only in part. I have no doubt that the commissioner's office will promote greater accountability for environmental outcomes. It will provide a catalyst for developing a more focused and informed view, and, hopefully, an independent view, of environmental issues. By "independent" I mean that the commissioner should be apolitical. I note that the Minister has indicated that this will be the case.
I do have some reservations, however, and these relate more to a general aversion to the creation of further bureaucracy. The beginning of a new office can be like sowing a small seed without really knowing the nature of the plant or how big it will grow. There is always a tendency or a temptation for a small office to grow, sometimes simply out of the desire to survive or for self-justification. Sometimes a new office will invariably discover other things to do to enhance what it started out with, and this can result in organisational expansion. If the Commissioner for the Environment is to be effective, he or she should not be surrounded by a web of bureaucratic humbug.
This position should demonstrate flexibility to move with questions pertaining to economic sustainability, the priorities for which will continually shift. In other words, while it is important for the commissioner to play a kind of watchdog role, there must be an appreciation of the importance of expediency in decision making for the viability of business. I would therefore hope that the Commissioner for the Environment will not be too interventionist, to the point where unnecessary obstacles are put in the way of developers. As I have been saying, we must strike the balance. We do have to consider that unemployment is still our No. 1 problem. I believe that the role of the commissioner will have to be clearly communicated to the public, as I could imagine some confusion with the role of pollution control. This confusion could result in the commissioner's office being inundated with complaints about smoke, noise and so on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .