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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1429 ..

Ms Horodny: Where are your processes? You have no processes, no monitoring.

MR HUMPHRIES: Let me say something: When driving home last night Ms Horodny went through a red light.

Mr Osborne: Shame on you, Lucy!

MR HUMPHRIES: Shame on you, Ms Horodny!

Ms Horodny: I did not drive home last night.

MR HUMPHRIES: Shame on you! I hear you say to me, "Prove it". Well, you drove the car, Ms Horodny; you prove that you did not go through the red light. You prove it. Ah, she cannot prove it. It must be true. She did go through the red light, Mr Speaker. Shame on you, Ms Horodny! Turn yourself in to the police tomorrow. That is precisely the same situation.

One other argument which I find amazing is the argument that we should not accept waste from another jurisdiction; that if waste is produced in New South Wales it must be disposed of in New South Wales. That is a very strange argument indeed. First of all, the implication is that more waste facilities have to be built across Australia to accommodate people burning waste within their own jurisdiction. For example, the organochlorides which we do not destroy in the ACT will have to be destroyed in the ACT if Ms Horodny's maxim is to be accepted, because we should not be transporting them across the border.

Similarly, we also will be transporting wastes much greater distances. If someone produces a low-level waste in, say, Queanbeyan and cannot dispose of it in Canberra because that involves crossing the border, it will have to be sent to Sydney and therefore travel a much greater distance. The more you send dangerous chemicals long distances, the more the risk of an industrial accident and the escape of those chemicals. It makes no sense whatsoever. This is crazy. This is lunacy, Mr Speaker.

Mr Kaine: This is Green logic.

MR HUMPHRIES: This is Green logic. Mr Speaker, I table the authorisations I referred to before that indicate the authorisation for the destruction of those chemicals that were allegedly not authorised for destruction. Here they are. I can only say that some of the claims being made in this debate by the Greens, picking out the points made by Mr Darlington, really are quite bizarre. Members should be very wary of taking this kind of crazy approach towards the destruction of dangerous chemicals.

Amendment (Ms Horodny's) to Mr Corbell's amendments negatived.

Amendments (Mr Corbell's) agreed to.

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