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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2318 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

The report calls for tighter control on the storage and display of fireworks. It calls for heavier penalties for breaches of the law. We were impressed with the on-the-spot fines in New South Wales. We want heavy on-the-spot fines for people who possess, sell or display illegal fireworks.

The report calls for greater cooperation amongst federal and state governments to regulate fireworks, and it especially urges the federal government to better control the import of fireworks.

The committee is very pleased to meet the deadline that was set by the Assembly. Now it is for Assembly members and the government to respond to the recommendations.

A number of other statements were made during the inquiry. It has been suggested that the committee has deliberately kept some submissions confidential to hide the viewpoints of certain people. That is false. We received some 30 submissions. Six of them have been kept confidential, one at the writer's request and the other five on advice that as they contained allegations against named persons they might easily be seen as reflecting adversely upon those persons. In the circumstances it is incumbent upon parliamentary committees to ensure procedural fairness by inviting persons adversely named to respond to the allegations if they so wish. That process is still in train, and at a later time the committee will consider whether to authorise release of the confidential submissions. We will seek further advice to make sure that what we are doing is fair, legal and appropriate. In light of the personal allegations made, that is crucially important. The committee has a duty to ensure fairness to all.

It was a difficult inquiry, because there were a number of allegations, as there have been over several years. Allegations were bandied about in the press. It is no secret that there are problems between WorkCover and members of the fireworks industry. Some of that came out in the public evidence and in personal allegations that came out in the several hearings we had in private.

The committee is not in a position to make too many conclusions as a result of that evidence. We are not a court of law. We do not have counsel appearing and detailed cross-examination of witnesses. We take evidence. We hear submissions. We ask some questions. Nevertheless, we have made some observations in our report where appropriate. But I stress that it is not for us to decide who is right, who is wrong and what comments are accurate and what comments are not.

All participants in this inquiry agreed that the Dangerous Goods Act and the subordinate legislation were not good legislation and needed urgent redrafting-especially in relation to the sale, safety and definition of fireworks-to improve clarity, incorporate all relevant Australian and international standards, lessen the current dependence on regulation, ensure appropriate safeguards and make explicit the small group of fireworks exempted from licensing provisions (such as bonbons, party crackers, caps for cap guns and small sparklers). Accordingly, the first recommendation is that the Dangerous Goods Act and subordinate legislation be urgently redrafted.

We make 16 recommendations. I commend those to the government. I have mentioned some of the salient ones. We recommend that the government ensure that legislation requires clear, accurate classification and labelling on all explosives, including fireworks.

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