Page 6049 - Week 18 - Thursday, 12 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
international obligations incurred by the Australian Government under the Montreal protocol, and, in addition, it complements the Commonwealth Ozone Protection Act of 1989, which also provided for some coverage of manufacturers of ozone depleting substances.
The Minister, in his presentation speech, made a number of comments about the course of development of this matter. He indicated, on page 4 of his circulated presentation speech, that:
The process used in developing the strategy for ozone protection is a model for cooperation between government, industry, union, environmental groups and the community.
I have to say, quite frankly, that I hope not, because I am aware that there is at least one major group in this community which was not, apparently, consulted about this important Bill before it came before this Assembly. It would appear that my forwarding to them of that Bill was the first they had seen of it.
I understand that the Government has consulted directly with some producers of ozone depleting substances; but, of course, the danger in that circumstance is that if one tries to contact everybody at the grassroots one invariably misses out somebody. Umbrella groups are sometimes useful in reaching all their members and people who are representative of that general field. I sincerely hope that in the future bodies such as the Chamber of Manufactures can be informed, rationally and early, of the Government's intentions in these sorts of matters.
The Minister also said, later in his presentation speech, that this legislation represented "the minimum of government regulation of business". I have to say that I disagree with that statement as well. The regulation entailed in this Bill is extensive, comprehensive and occasionally quite invasive. The provisions that are set out in this Bill are quite tightly worded, and they are, for the most part, extremely all-embracing.
I want to illustrate that by making reference to some of the provisions themselves. Anybody who manufactures, deals with, uses or services an article which contains ozone depleting substances has to obtain a licence to do so. That person or company has to obtain a licence, for a period of only 12 months. They cannot have a longer period than that. The application has to be accompanied by a fee. I assume that that will be a cost recovery type of fee.
There are stringent conditions attached to the granting of a licence. The applicant has to have completed an approved course or an approved examination. There are very few regulatory schemes that require either courses of education or examinations as a prerequisite for the holding of a licence. Alternatively, they have to be accredited under the law of some other State which presumably reflects these
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .