Page 3595 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
have to wonder if the demise of this very useful and hardworking body of scientists, sociologists and others, I think sometime in 2006, signalled a quiet pulling back from the promise to introduce sustainability legislation, because that was one of the things that they were advising on.
The SERG met directly with the minister for the environment, thus bypassing advisers and bureaucrats. It is very important that the minister for the environment has direct access to experts like this, but was that a reason for them to be silenced? The deactivation of the SERG is of grave concern; it was reassuring to know that the government was getting expert advice and opinion on a range of issues relating to sustainability.
The combination of the downsizing of the Office of Sustainability and the loss of the entity “Environment ACT” as a discrete functioning unit means that the government needs to draw on as much external advice as possible. One of the recommendations of the Environmental Defender’s Office submission on sustainability legislation was to enshrine the SERG or a similar round table.
Specific sustainability legislation is a relative new concept, but there are some potential models. In 2004, the WA government introduced a draft sustainability bill. In South Australia, the Development (Sustainable Development) Amendment Bill 2005 was introduced to amend the Development Act 1993. Because it was so large, it was split into four bills, and passed. This is an indication of the evolution that can occur through discussion about legislation like sustainability legislation so that we end up with something else. What I am saying in my motion today is that we need to have that discussion.
The need for sustainability reporting was highlighted in the ACT Auditor-General’s performance audit report Reporting on ecologically sustainable development in July 2005. The report said:
There is scope for considerable improvement to the ESD guidance and information contained in annual reports …
The majority of information in agencies’ annual reports did not provide a useful indication of agency progress against the ESD requirements.
It also said:
There was little evidence that decision-making processes take into account ESD principles. In almost 70% of agencies reviewed, ESD information was not a regular feature of reports to agency’s senior management.
All ACT agencies are legally required to report on how they are meeting ESD principles and to operate in a manner consistent with ESD principles. However, this is clearly not enough to ensure that ESD becomes part of day-to-day thinking and decision making. We are particularly concerned that the lack of sustainability legislation and a sustainability framework meant that the reform of the land act into the Planning and Development Act meant that sustainability issues were not prioritised. This is a feature of both the New Zealand legislation and the legislation in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .