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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4200 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Obviously, when groups such as a reference group spend a lot of time working over a piece of legislation and reaching agreement on it, there is always the risk that when it comes before the decision-making forum, that is, the parliament, further changes will be made which will upset the applecart. I think that, for the most part, we have avoided that with this package of amendments. For the most part, we have preserved the spirit of the legislation but refined it in such a way that ultimately people will find it hard to criticise.

As I have said, I cannot be confident that there will not be some things that have to be changed in the near future or after the two years which this legislation operates before a review takes place. I am fairly confident that we have struck a good balance, both in the Bill and in the amendments which I have moved today and which are the product of that earlier work.

MR MOORE (8.55): I would like to take a few moments to comment on the amendments. The amendments have been drawn directly from the report of the Planning and Environment Committee, as Mr Humphries indicated. I would like to comment on the round table revision that was conducted. Mr Humphries came back to each member of the committee as individuals and said, "We would like to sit down at a round table because we think you have misunderstood a few issues and because your report is worded in such a way that it could be interpreted in a couple of different ways". We sat down around the table, and I feel confident that the revisions that we went through did not change the principles that we were trying to achieve in each of our recommendations.

It was a very interesting process which, for me, reiterates what Mr Humphries said about the principles behind the legislation being understood not just by him and the support staff from his department but also by each member who was involved in dealing with the report and the legislation. It is a particularly complex piece of legislation; but through all those discussions members were focused on the principles that we were trying to achieve, rather than a particular way to achieve them. On a number of occasions the committee had recommended a particular way to achieve something and the Government were able to say, "We think there is a better way to achieve it", and that was recognised by the committee. I think the outcome will speak for itself.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (8.57): There are a number of points I think I need to make to explain the amendments. The first of these relates to the objects clause of the Bill. While the objects clause articulates principles and practices, it is nonetheless central to the whole operation of the Bill because it constrains what action can be taken. Regard has to be had to the objects clause in every decision where there is an exercise of discretion on the part of the Environment Management Authority or the Minister. It is therefore vitally important that the objects clause reflect our intentions and aspirations for the legislation.

The amendments enshrine the principle that decision-making under the Bill should integrate environmental, economic and social considerations. They also reflect our concern that environmental considerations be taken into account in economic and social decision-making. That is an important principle, and I am grateful to members of the Assembly for their willingness to compromise on that matter. I think we would all accept that balancing of those considerations is absolutely essential to the operation of any effective piece of legislation, this perhaps most of all.

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