Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3521 ..

MR CORBELL (12.15): Mr Speaker, there is no doubt that this committee's report on the Environment Protection Bill is a very significant work. The Environment Protection Bill is perhaps the most significant piece of environment legislation ever brought before this Assembly in the history of self-government. The report certainly is a comprehensive one. There are a few issues that I would like to highlight and I take this opportunity to do so.

The first is in relation to the objects of the Bill. The committee has recommended a number of changes to the objects of the Bill in order to focus more strongly on environmental protection rather than on economic imperatives. I must admit that, in terms of the principle of environmental protection, this is an extremely important recommendation. What it says is that the community believes that environmental protection rises above issues purely associated with the economic imperatives of business. That is a very important point. Of course, we do have to take into account the issues of businesses operating within regulations, as we do with any other piece of legislation; but when it comes to the protection of the environment it is quite clear that the objects of this Bill should focus overwhelmingly on the protection of our environment. It is the objects that govern the operation and the philosophy of the Environment Management Authority and it is appropriate, therefore, that the objects reflect the emphasis on environmental protection which our community wants.

Another very important issue - Mr Moore raised it earlier - is the independence of the Environment Management Authority. This issue raised much concern and debate in the committee. As Mr Moore indicated, on balance we were prepared to accept the Government's argument that there was not a need for an independent Environment Management Authority separate from a government department in the ACT. The argument raised by the Government in relation to this was, basically, that we are a small jurisdiction and to have a small independent agency would not be appropriate. Well, it is not impossible to have a small independent agency in a small jurisdiction; but, on balance, we were prepared to accept the Government's arguments - but with some very important riders. I think Mr Moore alluded to these earlier. We wanted to make sure that the integrity of decisions made by the EMA were not threatened by Executive action.

There are a number of important recommendations in this regard. Primarily, should the Minister direct the authority in some way, there has to be notification in the Gazette; the Minister cannot direct in relation to investigation or enforcement of the Act; and, where certain decisions are made by the Minister under proposed section 87 of the Act, they are disallowable by the Assembly. I think these are all very important reforms. They are reforms that I and the Labor Party would very much like to see the Government take up. They are, basically, the conditions upon which we are prepared to accept an EMA within the department rather than as an independent agency. I think it is very important that the Government take those recommendations seriously and act on them accordingly.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .