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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2808 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

We have also made a decision in this community about contaminated soil. We have said that soil contaminated with arsenic is not acceptable. We will not accept it on environmental and health grounds. There is obviously an enormous cost. If you want to talk about costs, you could ask why we do not just leave families sitting on contaminated soil and instead spend the money on health or education. It is because we have decided that the standard that exists is not good enough. We want to improve our standard. These things change. That is the way we are. That is modern society. Social standards do change.

Mr Humphries also talked about insecurity for the Parkwood establishment. I think that Mr Humphries has to take responsibility now. It seems that this Bill will be passing this Assembly. There are several amendments coming. I have indicated that I will accept those amendments and speak to them later on. The insecurity issue is now dependent on how quickly and how reasonably this Government and future governments deal with this issue and work on getting an exemption under the Mutual Recognition Act from the other States.

I understand that the Chief Minister and/or possibly the Attorney-General will be working on this issue and talking with other States about it. Obviously, that work could begin pretty much immediately, with correspondence going out and with arrangements to put this issue on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Australian Governments. I am not sure what the exact process would be, but that is certainly for the Government to work out. It is also up to the Government to keep this Assembly informed on progress on this issue. We are not just going to throw this to you and hope that you deal with it. We will be asking questions of you regularly. We will be asking you regularly for updates on how discussions are going.

Mrs Carnell: We write to them. That is what we do. That is how it is done. We write to other designated people. That is how the job is done.

MS HORODNY: Mrs Carnell, you can respond to this when it is your turn.

Mr Moore: You close the debate.

MS HORODNY: There are amendments. She can get up and speak when the amendments come through. We will be watching very closely how the Government takes this on and how honourably this issue is dealt with. Mr Humphries, I know you will deal with it very honourably. I am not casting doubts on you.

Mr Moore touched on community standards. He said that he thought the advertising campaign that has been running for the last several months, and indeed was run last year as well, by the animal rights group here in the ACT was a tad emotional. He thought that that might have worked against them in some instances. I agree with Mr Moore that there is certainly a balance to be struck in presenting any campaign. Of course, the balance needs to be about presenting the truth on any matter, revealing to the community what is actually happening in an industry such as the intensive farming industry, making people aware of what is going on in that industry and making it easier for them to do the right thing. We all prefer a carrot approach to a stick approach.

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