Page 2837 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Deputy Speaker, as Mr Duby said, the Government should accept that its attempts to delay this have not worked. It has been outplayed. I believe that Mr Berry should accept that, on effective and prompt assistance from the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, a properly worded amendment has been drafted by that office in a commendably short time, late this afternoon. The amendment has been moved on the basis of its proper preparation. Unless the Minister can point to any unintended results, or any effect of that amendment, I believe that it should be carried by this house.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (5.26): I am not a lawyer, but I recognise a bit of chicanery when I see it. There are a couple of interesting things with this debate. The issue that gave rise to the very sensible amendment that was drafted for me by the Law Office and circulated to members was a difficulty with ACTEW's machinery. The incapacity of that machinery to deliver the rates that the Assembly, it appears, wants to implement has now been recognised by the members opposite.
It is interesting to study what has gone on in the last little while in respect of this matter. First of all, it was rumoured that we would have an approximate crime and a penalty, that is, the amendment would be approximately 0.5 of a milligram per litre. But people thought better of that, sensibly, so that we would actually go back to the full crime of the legislation but remove the penalty.
Mr Moore: He does not know what has happened. The penalty still applies.
MR BERRY: That in fact is what has happened. The people in this place do not seem to recognise that they are playing with the lifeblood of this Territory. This is the water supply for the Australian Capital Territory, and you are playing silly games. You have recognised that the machinery is not up to it. You have refused to accept a reasonable amendment which would have given you your way. It was put forward in good faith to assist; no more than that. It was drafted at short notice by the same Law Office that drafted this amendment on the silly instructions of some members opposite. What this boils down to is that ACTEW is required, to use Mr Collaery's approach, to do their very best to dose the water at 0.5 of a milligram per litre, knowing full well that their machinery cannot do it.
Mr Moore: They can. Your letter says that they can, 60 per cent of the time.
MR BERRY: My letter does not say that at all. It says that the tolerances are outside the acceptable levels. It makes it clear that it is somewhere between 20 and 40 per cent. I think the acceptable levels are somewhere around 10 per cent, plus or minus. What Mr Collaery and his
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .