Page 2836 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Proposed new clause 6
MR COLLAERY (5.22): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:
Transitional
"6. Section 74B of the Principal Act does not apply in relation to the addition by the Authority to the water supply system of the Territory of fluoride within the meaning of Part VIIIA of that Act at a concentration not exceeding 1 milligram per litre at any time during the period of 9 months after the commencement of this Act.".
The effect of this is to add clause 6 to the Bill. The effect of clause 6 is to alter the offence provision and overcome the problem that was alluded to by Mr Berry. The amendment states that the Electricity and Water Authority has the legal obligation to reduce the quantity to 0.5, but during a transitional period not exceeding a period of nine months after the commencement of this Act the offence provision in section 74B of the Act - some members may have a copy before them; I have a couple more here - will not apply. I trust that members understand that, although ACTEW will have the obligation to give effect to the amendment moved by Dr Kinloch and passed by this house, the legal effect will remain that of a statutory obligation but there will not be an offence in the terms of section 74B.
Not all legislation affecting the management of public utilities puts such a heavy onus on the employees of that authority. Members will recall the debate on section 74B in this house when it was passed. Members will recall that there was some concern about the heavy onus this put upon the employees of ACTEW. The effect, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that we are nullifying that provision, that very heavy onus on the people involved, for that period. But the nullification does not allow any chemicals to be added; that offence will still remain for that. It specifically refers to fluoride, and it specifically refers to fluoride at a concentration not exceeding one milligram per litre. In other words, they are still bound by these provisions for the current parameters, but they would not be capable of prosecution were they to be found to be above 0.5 during that period.
I think it is a commendable and simple amendment to the Act to overcome the problem alluded to by Mr Berry. It is a sensible and level-headed measure to protect the employees of ACTEW from an unintended result, bearing in mind the original qualms in this house about the very heavy onus that section 74B placed on ACTEW, as a body corporate, and its employees. Of course, that provision applies as well to nutters who might try to infiltrate the system and put other chemicals into our water supply - terrorists and the like. There would be other offences as well, but certainly none of that section and the provisions and the obligations that it imposes is weakened by this amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .