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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2689 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

the ACT. Mr Rugendyke told us that he likes to go out with his chainsaw and get his wood and that he likes to burn a bit of stringy-bark but does not like pine because it does not burn as well.

What I have been trying to stress at length on both occasion I have spoken on this is that this is having a very serious impact on remnant woodland in the region. People advertise in the paper the fact they have driven 800 kilometres to Canberra. It is destroying remnant woodland and destroying species, causing greater danger for species and extinction. But Mr Rugendyke wants to know that he can sit in front of his fire. To him, that is more important. He is allowed to have that view.

I come to Mr Smyth's arguments. Mr Smyth is about the Liberal Party's ideological commitment not to impose regulation on industry and their reluctance to impose further costs on government agencies. We know that this will have cost implications and we know that this government is so obsessed with having their budget surplus and so on. The minister for the environment has a greater commitment to that than to protecting the environment of the ACT and region-I stress "region", although that may not seem relevant to Mr Smyth-and the health of the people in the ACT. It is disturbing to see that level of argument from a minister who supposedly represents the environment.

Mr Smyth argued that I am pre-empting and that we should wait for a nationally consistent approach. That is quite hilarious from this government when it has said to the federal government, "Don't you tell us you want a national approach to Internet gambling. We are leading the way. We want the revenue." When we want the revenue, we do not have a national approach. But this is not about revenue. This is about protecting the environment and the health of people in the ACT community, so suddenly Mr Smyth, of the same government, wants a national approach.

Many of us are aware that the Australia and New Zealand Conservation Council do not necessarily make decisions quickly. We think this is a critical issue. In fact, many people in Mr Smyth's electorate are saying it is a critical issue. Many people are concerned about how this government is failing to take a greater role in ensuring we have a more responsible approach.

Mr Stefaniak read out a letter from the industry that creates stoves and so on, saying that it is not a good idea to promote mixed loads, which is part of the voluntary code of practice that Mr Smyth told us is working so well. Mr Stefaniak has contradicted Mr Smyth's claim that the voluntary code of practice is working so well.

The other argument from the minister for the environment was that we are meeting the standard for measuring fine particle pollution, and therefore we should not have to do anymore. This is saying, "We only do what we have to do, even if we know it is inadequate." This is the government that likes to claim it is leading the way in IT outsourcing, in industry or whatever. But when it comes to this issue, we do not want to lead the way. We only comply with the level that we have to comply with.

Mr Smyth also claimed that my data was old. The CSIRO report I referred to was only released in May 2000 and used the best data available at the time. That is reasonable for a scientific study of that depth. What came out of that study is relevant in any debate on the issue. But I also referred to a much more recent study that showed that, compared to

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