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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2688 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (5.36): Mr Speaker, at first blush it did not appear to me that there was much of a problem with this legislation. My concern was mainly about whether or not I would still be able to go out with my chainsaw and trailer and get a load of firewood. I was advised that I probably could. I was also told that there had been a lot of consultation with the industry and that this legislation came about as a result of that consultation, but I do not think we have heard a great deal of evidence of that.

Concerns have been brought up about whether or not we should wait for national legislation, whether we would be able to go to Queanbeyan and get our firewood, whether we should burden firewood sales people by requiring them to build weighbridges and whether we should allow people to burn pine. To me that seems to be anathema. One of the lousiest woods you can find to burn in a fireplace is pine. Blowed if I know how you would come back with a trailer load of pine and be happy.

I have listened carefully to the debate. I agree that Tuggeranong suffers from inversion layers. I have seen the photographs. I know that smoke irritates some people. I also know that there are a damn lot of people who get a lot of comfort from sitting in front of an open fire or a good stringy-bark fire. I have never known anyone to sit in front of a pine fire. I think it needs more work.

I also received the letter from Ms Jenkinson that Mr Stefaniak received and that concerned me. Once again, the use of pine was brought up.

The person who sells the wood has to work out how much of each type of wood is in the load. I would be happy to see this debate adjourned until the national strategy is worked out. so that we do not unnecessarily burden ACT small businesses or people with wood fires.

MS TUCKER (5.40), in reply: I will respond to the later comments first. Mr Stefaniak argued that Sydney has sea breezes so it is different. I cannot for the life of me see how he thinks he has supported the Liberal side of this debate by saying that. That is obviously one of the issues. Because of our climate, we have a much greater problem with the number of days. If you recall, I said that there were 76 days-that was with a month's data missing-of a very high level of pollution.

Mr Rugendyke said that smoke from wood fires might cause irritation to a few people but lots of people like a wood fire. Smoke is more than irritation. It has severe health repercussions, leading in Sydney, according to data, to premature death. If you are sick with a respiratory weakness, this level of pollution in a prolonged situation has such a bad effect that authorities warn people not to go outside if it is over a certain level. That is why Sydney councils have a Don't Light Tonight campaign. It is a serious health issue. I was glad to see Mr Stanhope, as shadow minister for health, speak. I am sorry Mr Moore has not chosen to come down to the chamber. This is a health issue as well as an environment issue.

Mr Rugendyke also said that he does not like pine. This motion promotes mixed loads, not pure pine. He might be interested to know that more wood is burnt than is woodchipped. He does not claim to be a greenie, but he might be interested to know that more wood is disappearing due to burning than to woodchipping. It is a major problem in

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