Page 2109 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Aligning these two processes will make them more efficient and enable the sharing of resources. It will facilitate better-quality reporting and the implementation of management actions which will, in turn, help to achieve good conservation outcomes. This amendment does not affect the requirement for the conservator to monitor the implementation of a Ramsar wetland management plan and does not prevent the conservator reporting to the minister at other times if the need arises.
I would now like to briefly talk about some of the more technical amendments. Clause 17 of the bill contains an amendment to the Planning and Development Act 2007 that strengthens the consultation requirements when the custodian of an area of public land prepares a draft land management plan. The amendment adds the Environment Protection Authority, or EPA, as a person who must be consulted when preparing a land management plan.
Currently under section 321 of the Planning and Development Act, the Conservator of Flora and Fauna and the Planning and Land Authority are the two entities that must be consulted. It is important that the EPA is also consulted as, among other things, the EPA is responsible for contaminated land. Knowledge of contaminated land sites and advice on necessary management actions are important considerations that should inform land management plans. The EPA is currently consulted informally. However, it is important to formalise this process and ensure that it continues to occur as a matter of standard practice into the future. This is a sensible technical amendment to ensure efficient environmental land management.
Finally, clause 14 is a technical amendment to the operation of section 34 of the Heritage Act to ensure that it correctly reflects the decision-making process for provisional registration set out in other sections of the act. The current wording of this provision is such that an assessment against the heritage criteria must always be included in a notice of decision not to provisionally register a place or object under the Heritage Act. However, this is sometimes problematic, as there are circumstances when a decision not to provisionally register a place or object is made on another basis. In these circumstances, the decision is not based on an assessment against heritage criteria.
The council has discretion on whether or not to provisionally register a place or object. For example, the council may choose not to provisionally register a place under the Heritage Act where that place has natural heritage significance of a kind that is more appropriately protected under the Nature Conservation Act. In these situations there will not be an assessment under the heritage significant criteria. An assessment against the heritage criteria will be required to be included if it has in fact been conducted.
The amendments I have mentioned, along with others contained in the bill, will improve the operation of various elements of planning, building and environment legislation. Having effective legislation is vital to achieving good planning, environment and sustainability outcomes. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video