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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4215 ..

What does this say for other places that do not have the same level of activity around this issue so far as legislation is concerned? I do not think that we should be daunted by that. It is important that we put in place legislation that is good for our own community and we should not be fearful of doing these things because we might be the first. But at the same time I think we have got to have legislation structured in a way that takes account of anything that we have not thought of in this short space of time.

One of the risks we face in this Assembly is that we could find ourselves in a position where we could produce legislation pretty quickly. That is something that we have always got to be a little guarded about because we have got to make sure that it is quality legislation. I think the work that the minister and the minister’s office have done in relation to this legislation should give us all an assurance that in the future, when the job is more complete, we will be in a better position to judge how best to take it forward after that point.

Mr Stefaniak makes the point that it is possible, I think, that this legislation may need some future tweaking, and I think that is a fair point. One does not know, until one gets into all the detail of the effects that this legislation might have. But, overall, I see this as a continuing part of the massive campaign that has been required to try to rid our community of asbestos, though not necessarily all the asbestos products that were ever produced, because that would be difficult. Imagine the thousands and thousands of kilometres of water pipe, water mains, which have been laid underground and which will be there for eons. As they deteriorate and break, they will have to be dealt with as well. Long after we are out of the legislative game there will still be people dealing with asbestos and probably finetuning legislation to make sure that it is safe for workers and others who come into contact with it.

The important thing, I think, is to make sure that the younger generations who replace us are not as exposed to it as we were. We can be somewhat light-hearted about how close we were to asbestos because there is not much we can do about it if we have been exposed to it. But we can also be angry that people like Hardies and other people around the world who produced asbestos did so in the knowledge that it was dangerous.

All of the compensation in the world does not help or repair the damage done to the individuals who have been affected by this, but I think companies like Hardies, which have inflicted this on a large part of the world, have a price to pay. I am not a vindictive person, but I think that at some point in time companies like Hardies do lose the right to trade. If they have traded in products like this and done so in the knowledge that it affects people, then I think it is fair to say that most people in the community would say they have lost the right to be involved in commerce because they have proven that they are prepared to be involved in commerce which inflicts heavy damage on the community—not just an immediate damage but an ongoing one which will affect all of us, our families, our economies and our friends for a long time in the future.

It will also be a burden on legislatures as they have to deal with it. I have to say, in regard to any legislation that I have ever heard of in respect of this, it has always been dealt with fearlessly by legislators because they now understand the problem. That was not so in the past.

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