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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2684 ..

MR CORBELL (5.18): Wood smoke causes irritation of the eyes and the respiratory tract. It causes headaches. It can cause bronchial congestion. It can particularly affect people with breathing difficulties and asthma. Particulates which are resultant of incomplete combustion of wood can contribute to carcinogenic compounds and lead to a small but not insignificant cancer risk. Wood smoke has a particular effect on young people and the elderly.

That is the context in which we are debating this legislation and this motion today. It is not just about an aesthetic problem of wood smoke drifting over someone's backyard. It is about a problem which has a direct health impact on people in our community. In that context, I am very disappointed in the minister's response. The minister's response was to find just about every reason possible that he thinks this should not be done. That is not good enough for a minister for the environment and it is not something that this Assembly should accept.

Mr Smyth: That is a very poor misrepresentation, and you know it.

MR CORBELL: Minister, I heard you in silence, and I would ask you to do me the same courtesy. The argument Mr Smyth mounted in relation to the figures and data that Ms Tucker presented in her speech is wrong. This can be very clearly demonstrated. Data from the New South Wales Environment Protection Agency showed that Sydney East, which includes the CBD of Sydney, had five days with high pollution. In contrast, Monash in the Tuggeranong Valley had 76 days of high pollution, all due to high particle wood smoke levels. That was in 1999.

If you look also at the data from the monitoring site at Monash between January 1997 and July 1999, you will see that levels of particle pollution increased after the introduction of the ACT firewood strategy. I know that the minister is very keen to feed a story to Mr Rugendyke, but I think it is important to listen to the debate. The minister has had his opportunity to present his argument. This chart shows that the level of particle pollution increased after the introduction of the ACT firewood strategy. The fact is that the firewood strategy is not having the effect the minister would like it to have.

The firewood strategy and the code of practice are voluntary. There are only three wood merchants in the ACT abiding by the code of practice. There are 24 wood merchants in the ACT. Only three abide by the code of practice. The majority of all timber sold in the ACT is not sold by merchants who use the code of practice. That is a classic example of market failure. There is no other way of putting it.

For that reason this Assembly has to consider whether allowing the market to regulate itself is satisfactory. Labor does not believe it is. Labor believes that there is a need for a mandatory code of practice. The code of practice outlined in Ms Tucker's bill as part of an environmental authorisations process is, we believe, a very sensible process. The requirements are not onerous, but they will have a significant impact.

I move back to Ms Tucker's motion. We also have the issue of increased public education. The minister's argument is that the code of practice is working and is the public education process that should continue to work. Wood merchants who abide by the industry code of practice distribute a pamphlet which helps people with information on how to use their wood heater in the most efficient way. That is commendable,

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