Page 2643 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
this dispute to be resolved? Mr Smyth asked this question on 28 May. He received a substantive answer to this question only this morning. The answer is that, if a proposal for a fuel reduction burn is not provided with the necessary authorisation by both the ESA and the EPA, the burn cannot proceed.
Clearly, this outcome has the potential to be an untenable situation. Mr Smyth said that, as he has only just been told of this potential outcome, he has not had time to consider it fully and determine whether it is appropriate to amend the bill as he had considered. Mr Smyth and I believe this is a matter for further consideration. It is something we will be keeping under observation. This is an area of some red tape and, although there are pros and cons for this, we are concerned about the implications.
Fuel reduction is becoming more and more critical. Expert advice indicates that there may be only 10 to 14 days during a season when it is possible to conduct a burn. Indeed, the head of the fire management unit in TAMS recently commented in an interview on radio 666 that there are only 13 days in a season which are suitable for fuel reduction burns. Clearly, the question Mr Smyth raised, therefore, is fundamental. At this stage there is no satisfactory answer to resolving any of the potential disputes about whether a fuel reduction burn should be conducted during the bushfire season.
Mr Smyth notes the complex regulations required by the provisions of the two acts before a fuel reduction burn can be undertaken, that there needs to be an authorisation from the EPA and separately from the Emergency Services Authority; there is no one-stop shop for getting authorisations. The Canberra Liberals wonder whether it is necessary to have more than one authorisation and why a second is required. It is not sufficient to say, “It is only two authorisations.” There is inevitably the risk of an argument about further regulation. It is not until you are able to stand back and see the impost of any additional regulations that it is possible to assess the regulatory burden, and these are aspects that we shall be keeping a close eye on.
That said, we believe that the bill is worthy of support and on this occasion we will be supporting the bill, but with the concerns raised by Mr Smyth about the apparent double handling of authorisations under the Emergencies Act and the Environment Protection Act. I think that is an area where some consistency needs to be looked at and we will keep a close watch on this.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.05): The Greens will be supporting this bill today. It amends five separate acts in the ACT statute book. The amendments are relatively straightforward and are designed to make the application of the laws smoother in practice.
One area I would like to touch on in particular is the amendments to the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011. For some time now the Owners Corporation Network, who represent many unit title owners across the ACT, have been agitating for improvements to be made to the sinking fund provisions of the act. I have met with them to discuss their concerns about the provisions and have encouraged them to make contact with the government to outline their concerns. So I am pleased to see the government responding to their concerns in this bill today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video