Page 505 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 June 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
States. Overall, New South Wales would be a little bit less polluted but the rest of Australia would be more polluted, as a result of which there would be no significant change. I think it is a case, as Minister Grassby said earlier today, that in these matters we hang together or we hang separately - words to that effect.
Mr Speaker, I propose an amendment to the motion that the Bill be agreed to in principle, and I circulate copies of the amendment. I move:
That at the end of the motion add the following words "acknowledging that the NSW Liberal Government's anti-pollution legislation will be the toughest in Australia and should constitute a model for similar legislation in the ACT".
Of course, it is not possible to look in isolation at a small piece of legislation like a water pollution amendment Bill, or even indeed at the whole scheme for pollution legislation in the ACT, without looking at that wider, integrated model. I move this amendment in light of that. We must work with New South Wales, and I will indicate briefly what New South Wales is presently doing in the area of anti-pollution laws.
It will be introducing very soon - I understand, next month - a penalties for environment offences Act, and this will provide for quite comprehensive changes to what I think everyone would agree are laughably lenient penalties in New South Wales at present for pollution. It will provide that companies which deliberately pollute the environment with toxic wastes and other dangerous substances face fines of up to $1m. Before the Minister points out to me that my approaches on water pollution and the picking of wildflowers tend to differ, I should point out that this refers to the deliberate and intentional pollution of the environment with toxic wastes, and also refers to the effect on companies rather than on individuals.
There will be, in addition to this heavy penalty, no limit on the amount of clean-up costs involved. Those costs would be imposed on the company concerned. What is more, the courts would be empowered to seize company assets and company bosses would face up to seven years in gaol for the actions for which they were deliberately responsible.
Mr Greiner has said, in introducing this legislation to the public, that assets would be seized and used to clean up the environment. He points out that for too long major polluters have been able to escape with laughably small fines, and the Government is determined to enforce the concept of polluter pays. That is a principle which could well apply here, too.
That Government also looks to forcing companies responsible for incidents similar to the oil spill in, I think, Prince
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .