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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2696 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

of mixed wood loads. That is not requiring people to burn pine instead of native hardwood; it is saying where they have a heater capable of burning softwood as well as hardwood, wood merchants should be making those types of timbers available. That is what it means, Mr Speaker.

These are not dramatic changes. These are changes which are already part of the voluntary code of practice, but the issue we have to address in this place is that the voluntary code of practice is not working, that only three of the 24 merchants in the ACT are participating in the voluntary code of practice, that people with respiratory illness are seriously affected by wood smoke pollution, and that the level of wood smoke pollution in the Tuggeranong Valley rose after the introduction of the ACT's voluntary code. I think the arguments are compelling. I think the government's attempt to delay the legislation put forward by Ms Tucker today have been a disgrace and this Assembly should support the legislation.

MS TUCKER (6.12), in reply: Our legislation does cover the sale or supply, or cutting, storing or seasoning in preparation for the sale or supply, of firewood in the territory; so we have dealt with the issue that Mr Humphries was so concerned about in his response. It is interesting to me that Mrs Carnell and Mr Humphries are asking whether we have consulted. They are, as I understand it, members of the government which set up this working party which consulted extensively before it came up with the voluntary code of practice.

The work has been done. We know how the industry feels. We know that those in the industry who are acting responsibly-I think there might be more than three of them, but not many more; there may be eight of them-are concerned, for the reasons I have already outlined. Of course the work has been done. This is just about showing some kind of leadership on an issue that is causing a very serious environmental problem and a very serious health problem for people in the ACT. It is quite a scandal that this government is trying now to do absolutely anything it can to stop it.

The question of a national approach is a joke. How many meetings do we have year after year where we try to have a national approach taken? Mr Humphries said that he cannot guarantee one will be taken. Of course he cannot guarantee what will be decided at a national meeting on these sorts of issues. What we are doing with this legislation is showing that we do care about the environment and we do care about the health of the ACT community. The voluntary code of practice has failed. We are not changing it; we are putting it into place in a way that the government already has supported and consulted on. The only issue that is different is that it is mandatory.

The government seems to be saying, "We have a voluntary code of practice and we do not care if it is not working because the industry does not like it. We do not want to pass legislation because the industry does not like it." What possible credibility can a government have in introducing a voluntary code of practice which is obviously failing terribly and then saying that the industry will not like it if we try to do something about it and that is that? That is what this government is caring about, not the environment or the health of the people in the ACT.

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