Page 3291 - Week 10 - Thursday, 19 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Commissioner for the Environment’s recommendations on board and revealed a mature understanding of the complexities of ESD. The recommendations on these matters undoubtedly will improve the legislation.
Recommendation 4 does not go far enough. ACTCOSS asked that “meeting” needs be specified. While it is good that the committee recommends dropping reference to “aspirations”, it does not go so far as to include “needs”. There is no doubt, as the committee points out, that the legislation increases the power of the minister and the executive. While we are assured that ACTPLA is an independent body, I have not often seen it taking a different tack from the minister or vice versa. By contrast, the Legislative Assembly’s role is limited by this legislation. It is of concern that the useful analysis and opportunity for public participation in planning afforded by the current role of the planning and environment committee and other committees will be greatly reduced.
The six-month limit on a committee inquiry specified by clause 71 must be able to be extended as the committee recommends, and it makes sense that no decision should be made without the informed advice of its report. The Greens are concerned about the impact that this legislation will have on consultation with the community. Members are aware that Canberra citizens are more passionate about planning than are those in any other jurisdiction. Of course this can be annoying to ministers and bureaucrats, but to go to the lengths that this legislation does to reduce their input to planning decisions denies us the benefit of expert and local understanding. It is arrogant and it is undemocratic. I appreciate the committee’s reminder of the time frame set out by the government’s community engagement manual, but I would have also liked it to have recommended adherence to its processes as well as its time frames.
The committee discusses the restriction under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act placed on the standing of concerned people that they be materially affected, beyond economic or amenity. It is interesting to observe that submitters lined up predictably: the planning institute, the property council and the Housing Industry Association like it, while the conservation council, EDO, ACTCOSS and the Law Society of the ACT wanted restrictions relaxed. I wonder, with the EDO, where appeals on environmental grounds can be made.
I also have concern about environmental impact assessments—that their consideration will be reduced by the legislation. I note that ACTPLA itself will prepare a list of consultants and that consultation will be limited by the legislation. Many constructive suggestions were put forward by organisations, and the committee is to be commended on taking up some of these.
I am very concerned that the legislation is limited to recognising the Environmental Protection (Biodiversity Conservation) Act, as federal environment minister Ian Campbell has tabled a bill that will severely weaken the EP(BC) Act. I hope that the bar is not lowered as a result of that.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (11.56): I will take the opportunity to respond and make some brief comments on the committee’s report. I do not want this to be regarded as a government response—a formal government response to the report will be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .