Page 503 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 June 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Dr Kinloch: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just have heard this; I have seen nothing on paper. Should we not have time to consider these matters?
MR WHALAN: By way of explanation, Mr Speaker, it was a subject of negotiation. I regret that Dr Kinloch was not present, but his three party colleagues did discuss it with us.
WATER POLLUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1989
Debate resumed from 31 May 1989, on motion by Mrs Grassby:
That the Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR HUMPHRIES (3.24): Mr Speaker, in resuming the debate on the Water Pollution (Amendment) Bill, I want to indicate that the Opposition will not be opposing this Bill. These changes as foreshadowed in the Bill affect the 1984 Water Pollution Act to allow more adaptability to changing standards in the area of water pollution.
The important feature of any regulatory legislation of this kind, which is linked to evolving technology, is its capacity to be flexible. Differing standards of course apply from time to time, both in the level and in the quality, if I may put it that way, of pollution and also in detection methods. The fact that those standards differ means that flexibility is a crucial factor in dealing with problems that arise.
Nothing is worse than putting industry to outmoded or obsolete standards in an area of pollution control, for example, particularly if those standards are too low because they have been superseded by changes in technology.
The legislation provides for changes to the role of the analyst. That person referred to in the Act is a person of a technical nature who is empowered to conduct certain tests on water samples. The analyst is given power under the Bill to accompany the water pollution authority, or an inspector, when that person enters premises to conduct tests on water.
Any provision in any legislation which deals with the power of people to enter premises must, of course, be viewed very critically. We are all no doubt aware of the case, I think last year, of officers of the electricity and water authority being given power in certain circumstances to strip-search people. But in this case what we are looking at is merely an extension of the right of an official to accompany another official who already has under the principal Act the power to enter premises and conduct tests on water.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .