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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2682 ..

MR SMYTH: Senator Hill wanted this issue on the agenda because of his concern for remnant woodlands. He sees it as a big problem. When we see some of the figures that are bandied around for the tonnes of hardwood used every year, it should be an issue of interest for all of us.

We should defeat this motion today. It is not appropriate to support it. What we have in place is addressing all of the issues that Ms Tucker has raised. In using a "recent" CSIRO report, one done in 1997, you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing different cities at different times of the year in different seasons for different lengths of time. It is most unjust to make a broad assertion that Canberra is twice as bad as Sydney, when it is just not so.

There are flaws in the bill. Through ANZECC we are attempting to come up with a nationally consistent approach to harvesting and selling firewood. It is a great achievement that the Commonwealth and states and territories, both Liberal and Labor, are willing to work together on this, and we will have some answers in December. That leaves us plenty of time before next year's season, if necessary, to implement Ms Tucker's bill, but it is not appropriate to do it now.

Why is it not appropriate to do it now? It does not solve the problem. Yet again, we would be bringing in legislation that affects small business. They would have to put in a weighbridge, at tremendous expense. Go across the border to Queanbeyan. They do not have weighbridge. Businesses can deal straight into the Canberra market from Queanbeyan as well as they can from Mitchell, Hume or Fyshwick, I can assure you. If the Assembly imposes on small business in a way that drive jobs out of the ACT but does not solve the problem, then it is making bad law. If next year there is a nationally consistent approach that required licensing for everybody across the country, there will be absolutely no reason for traders to go across the border in an attempt to avoid what this Assembly may pass today. It is very important that we understand that.

The code of practice is a voluntary code under the ACT firewood strategy. It has been adopted by merchants who supply about 40 per cent of the firewood in the ACT. Over two seasons, we have 40 per cent voluntary adherence, and we are continuing to work with the other traders. This legislation will not stop the fly-by-nighters who are going to come across the border. Consistent legislation in New South Wales and across the country would.

We have to look at compliance as well. Forty-six complaints have been recorded this year, of which 19 have been in Tuggeranong. This compares with over 80 complaints, approximately 30 in Tuggeranong, last year. (Extension of time granted.) At this stage, about two-thirds of the way through the season, we are seeing fewer complaints already, so you can say that the strategy is having effect. We must continue to educate. It does take time to change people's habits, but already we are having an effect.

The proposed sale by weight as a compulsory condition of the authorisation would put extra costs on small business. As I have said, if we do not have consistent legislation across the border, traders will simply retreat across the border. I do not think anybody wants to see that. This proposal is not the answer. With a little bit of patience and a national approach, we can achieve a far better outcome for everybody.

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