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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2683 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

There are also some technical issues with the drafting of the definitions in this bill. It is not clear whether all wood would be considered wood taken from a tree, and it is not clear whether wood that has not yet been burnt is wood that is cut and burnt for fuel. The bill refers to seasoned wood, without giving a definition of what seasoned wood is. The whole issue of what is seasoned wood and what wood produces the least pollution is complex. Discussion is still going on in the scientific community as to what is seasoned wood. The question of how to regulate pollution from firewood needs much more careful consideration before we can get to that definition.

We now have a national task force. The ACT government, which Ms Tucker asserts has put this on the backburner and been inactive, has been able to get this on the agenda at a national level. In light of what we have done, a national task force has been established by ANZECC. We will be looking at these decisions in December when we get the report from the task force, so it would be appropriate not to go flying off the handle at this stage, particularly when this season is already over and when we may be able to do something that gives a far better outcome for all of us in the long term.

The ACT already does its monitoring. As soon as the standards for down to 2.5 microns are available, we will follow what the NEPM suggests we should do. We are already working with the population to make sure that they get better value out of their wood and do not waste the wood they purchase; that they get better heat out of it and we all get less pollution. We are already seeing the results of that. The surveys are showing that we are getting some 30 per cent less pollution.

We could look at measures to assist low-income households, but there are 10,000 households using wood heating. I would prefer to see the report of the working group before we follow that path. Should this get up, we can report back to the Assembly by the end of October, but I do not see the value of it when work is being done nationally.

Legislating in isolation can sometimes be very appropriate. But acting in isolation when we know that many people are looking for a national solution is quite silly. We are jumping to conclusions based on a 1997 report that compared different cities over two years at different parts of the season to come to a conclusion that Canberra has worse pollution than Sydney. It is patently not true.

We should vote no to the motion. I would be happy for debate on Ms Tucker's legislation to be adjourned until we have the results of the work being done. If it is adjourned, we can come back early next year and, in light of what we find out from the ANZECC investigation, still have time to put in place a licensing system. To jump the gun now would be silly.

My preference would be that the Assembly not vote in favour of the motion and that we adjourn the debate on the legislation. Should Ms Tucker move to bring forward the legislation against the national scene, that is her prerogative. In that case the government would vote against it until such time as we have the appropriate amount of information to make sure that we get it right.

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