Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1109 ..
MR BERRY (continuing):
There is a bit of discretion for the inspector there, I would think. There are a few things to think about. I continue:
A person shall not cause run-off from the washing of a vehicle, equipment or other thing on premises at which the vehicle, equipment or other thing is ordinarily kept to enter the stormwater system, if the washing is not in the course of, or incidental to, the carrying on of a commercial activity and there is, on those premises-
(a) access to a grassed or gravelled area on which to wash the vehicle, equipment or other thing from which the run-off does not flow directly into the stormwater system; or
(b) an area identified as one in which a vehicle, equipment or other thing may be washed.
A person shall not cause any of the following substances to enter the stormwater system:
(a) paint;
(b) automotive fuels, oils or greases;
(c) cooking fats or oils;
(d) degreasers;
(e) detergents;
(f) animal wastes;
(g) food wastes;
(h) other waste.
There are a few things inspectors have to take into account if they are determining whether there has been an offence under that legislation. To say that the exercise of discretion is an enemy of on-the-spot fines is just bunkum. Discretion about the issue of on-the-spot fines is exercised all the time everywhere such fines are used. Whether or not to issue them is a discretion. Whether or not the case is black and white enough for them to be issued by the officers or officials who are exercising the right to issue on-the-spot fines is a discretion.
I think I have demolished that argument. We can forget it and leave it in the past. It is quite clear that discretion is exercised in other occupational health and safety jurisdictions. It is clear that discretion is exercised even in our own jurisdiction on other matters. This regime of on-the-spot fines is drawn from the same model as was used to develop the Road Transport (Offences) Regulations 2000 and, as I have said, it is consistent with the approach of the New South Wales occupation health and safety law.
Mr Speaker, this legislation is designed to start something that should have been started ages ago. In 1995 the Productivity Commission said that we should move down this path, and it has taken us this long to get there-and only because it has been brought up by non-executive members of this Assembly and is being supported by non-executive members of this Assembly.
I am a bit reluctant to go through all of the amendments I propose, because if I do I will have to do it twice, but some of them were mentioned in the course of Mr Smyth's contribution to the debate, so I will go through them. Mr Smyth is correct when he says the department came to me to seek some clarification of what we were on about. I will go through some of the expressions of concern.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .