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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2007 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 18 October 2007) . . Page.. 3121 ..

committee and broader biosphere partners association. The committee suggests that to build on existing partnerships for sustainability the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment be asked to develop, in consultation with stakeholders, a cooperation plan for the proposed ACT biosphere reserve, having considered Canadian precedents and with provision for regular review and amendment as the need arises.

In the committee’s view, mechanisms to manage activities in the proposed biosphere reserve are already in place. The region, territory and local scale land use laws and policies that apply for the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable development in the ACT are detailed and substantial. ACT planning law and policy already recognises the importance of the ecosystem approach and wildlife corridors for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.

While the committee recommends that the territory be nominated and that negotiations be entered into with New South Wales about a cross-border biosphere reserve, we also raise the prospect of a larger biosphere over time. The committee recommends that local governments in the capital region, the Capital Region Development Board and the Capital Region Area Consultative Committee be invited to discuss a possible biosphere reserve for the capital region.

In summary, the committee considers the proposed nomination and listing as likely to lead to local, regional, national and international biodiversity conservation benefits and intergenerational benefits and that it would be a tangible response to climate change.

The committee thanks the many stakeholders who participated in this inquiry and contributed to the report. The valuable views and insights that they have shared are noted throughout the report. I would also like to thank the Assembly’s Committee Office for their assistance throughout the inquiry and in particular to the committee secretary Hanna Jaireth and the administrative officers Lydia Chung and Mary Goring. I would also like to thank my committee colleagues Ms Mary Porter and Mr Zed Seselja for their input into this report. I commend the report to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Dr Foskey) adjourned to the next sitting.

Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2007

Detail stage

Clause 18.

Debate resumed from 27 September 2007.

DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.06): With regard to Mr Mulcahy’s opposition to the strict liability clauses, it would seem that he either is not aware or does not care about the problems with section 48 of the OH&S Act and the various sections of the Dangerous Goods Act which engendered these amendments. As currently worded, the legislation renders essentially redundant the absolute liability which applies to the first element in each of these offences. If Mr Mulcahy thinks that absolute liability should not apply to the first element in each of these offences, why does this amendment not

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