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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2695 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

It is not as if no framework for improvement of this regime is presently being considered. The Minister for Urban Services made it clear that this matter has been on the agenda of the national environment and conservation council, the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, for some time-

Mr Kaine: For too long.

MR HUMPHRIES: Perhaps for too long. Mr Kaine, as a former minister for the environment, would be aware that these things move very slowly, far too slowly on occasions. But the minister has indicated that he believes that this matter is likely to be resolved in the near future by the council, by the national environment ministers. If that achieves a synchronisation of our legislation with that of New South Wales, then we have achieved a resolution of the problem that I just drew attention to.

Is it not better to wait for that, particularly given the fact that we are now ending the 2000 firewood season anyway? By the time this bill is up and running, the firewood season will be over and no-one will be buying firewood. By the time the next season comes around in 2001, we should be able to deal with this issue. I cannot promise, obviously, but we should be able to. If we have not dealt with the issue, then we can come back and vote on Ms Tucker's legislation. What have we got to lose by using the summer months, the months between the end of this season and the beginning of next season, to talk to the industry, to see what happens at the national level and try to negotiate some better outcome than passing this legislation through the house in haste today? I think that we are not serving our community well if we do not take a step back from this approach.

MR CORBELL (6.08): As usual when the government finds itself in a little bit of trouble, standard defence number one is that the world will end if we pass it today. That is the defence we have heard from the Attorney-General this afternoon. The reality is, of course, that nothing of the sort will occur. These are not dramatic changes. In fact, they simply make mandatory what is already voluntary. How significant a change is that? I think it will have a significant effect in terms of the ability to control problems to do with wood smoke pollution; but in terms of the sorts of ideas that we are debating, there is nothing new or dramatic in it.

The minister also says that we are passing this legislation in haste. This legislation was not introduced yesterday. This legislation has been on the table for some time. Unlike the government, which introduced bills yesterday and wants them debated next week, Ms Tucker has at least done a courtesy to this place in introducing this legislation some time ago-indeed, before the winter recess-and giving members an opportunity properly to examine it. The argument that we are passing this legislation in haste is a nonsense; it is an absolute nonsense.

Mr Speaker, the other argument that was presented by the Attorney-General was that this bill would have an adverse impact on small business and it would result in businesses having to go over the border. Certainly, it is my understanding that any business wishing to sell firewood in the ACT will require an environmental authorisation under the Environment Protection Act, and a requirement of that authorisation, as proposed by Ms Tucker's legislation, will be to abide by the conditions which are currently voluntary in the voluntary code of practice. One is, as far as possible, to offer customers the choice

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