Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1729 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

to know what we were attempting to achieve at this stage. Mr Speaker, measuring the air quality at the beginning of the year and the end of the year and then determining a cost for the change in air quality, if any, is an extremely difficult concept. It is one that does need to be addressed, and one that I would certainly be supporting any move of this Assembly to do further work on; but at this stage we are simply not in a position, I believe, to legislate in this area. I believe that our State of the Environment Report provides a range of indicators which deal very well with the ACT environment.

Ms Tucker made the comment that a number of private sector companies are starting to look at this area, and she is right; but the reports that they are presenting at this stage are very much qualitative rather than quantitative, the reason being that the methodology for doing this sort of work is simply not there at this stage. I would support any work that this Assembly can do to ensure that that work can be furthered, but at this stage I do not believe that we can legislate.

MR MOORE (5.33): Mr Speaker, in speaking to this amendment, it surprises me that somebody like you has not stood here and said that the legislation is turning Canberra into a social laboratory. When I put up legislation that is progressive and forward-thinking, usually it is addressed by some other members of this Assembly. I presume from the tone of what I hear in response to Ms Tucker's amendment that it is even more the stuff of a social laboratory. Heaven's above, we cannot try to do things first in Canberra because we might wind up doing them first.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that what Ms Tucker has presented as far as amendment No. 2 is concerned is very sensible, but I will deal with amendment No. 1 first. I am going to oppose amendment No. 1, which seeks to change the heading to "Financial and Environmental Reports". To take that issue in terms of the long title of the Bill, I think people will start to talk about a Financial and Environmental Management Bill. If we are going to do that, we probably should also then look at issues of population health and issues of social justice in here, and we will wind up with a very long title to the Bill. Whilst I understand the motivation behind this, I think it is inappropriate.

My understanding is that amendment No. 2 proposed by Ms Tucker will not be able to get through this Assembly. From my discussions with Mr Whitecross and Ms Tucker, it probably is an appropriate issue for the Planning and Environment Committee to look at and see whether we can meet the sorts of questions that the Chief Minister raised. My understanding is that that is the concern of the Opposition as well, but I am sure that Mr Whitecross will speak to that. The suggestion was made to me that it be considered by the committee. The committee has so little else to do that it might be an issue that could be dealt with by that committee. If that is the indication from the Assembly, I would be happy to consider, with the committee, whether we would be prepared to self-refer that. That would be a matter for the committee to deal with at its meeting tomorrow. It would be useful to us to have an indication from the Assembly, if that is the general wish, and then the formal process can be handled by the committee.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .