Page 6059 - Week 18 - Thursday, 12 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The big point is that we cannot prove that it is and we cannot prove that it is not. I well understand that some people would say, and have said, with respect to the greenhouse effect, "But can we take the chance?". One might then ask: Can we take the chance to do what? Can we take the chance to introduce legislation which may not cause a problem in the ACT or Australia but which, from an international point of view, could cause major problems in undeveloped countries where the value of these gases is needed, because they are stable? The gases that replace them are not as stable, which is one of the reasons why they are being used; secondly, they are inexpensive.
So, someone is going to have to pay more money. So, can we take the chance? Many people would say no, we should not take the chance of causing those problems, particularly when we are not sure. It is fairly obvious that members in this Assembly are not sure. I grant totally that I am not 100 per cent certain either way myself, but at least I present another side. But we did hear Mr Jensen stand up and say that it was discovered in 1984, and that is simply untrue. Yet this sort of data is accepted by so many people. These things can be accepted by us. We make laws without even knowing the facts. I think that is a problem, and I think this Bill is a problem.
I would love to have done more research so that I could present a better case on the matter. However, there is not the time to do that, which is why I have raised in this Assembly three matters of public importance saying that there is not the time to communicate with researchers; there is not the time to draft amendments; there is not the time to get the matters out to the public. It simply is not okay.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.52), in reply: I note what the various speakers have said. Mr Humphries had some concern about the level of consultation with relevant industry groups, and I think he mentioned the Chamber of Manufactures. I think the fact is that, at the national level - and bear in mind that this is very much an ACT Territory response to what is happening nationally and in the States - all relevant bodies were consulted in drawing up relevant policies. All the data that comes through does so after such discussion.
It may have been - I think it was the case - that in the preparation of this ACT Bill the Chamber of Manufactures was not consulted, but really there was not the need to; we were following closely the models established elsewhere and we were following closely the sorts of guidelines and policies that Mr Jensen alluded to. So, I think it is fair to say that the views of that body were well and truly considered.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .