Page 2735 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
attended by those who have got an axe to grind on the issue one way or the other. I am interested in the telephone survey. If it is done properly, I think that will give us a more representative view.
I do not get a lot of letters about this issue, with respect to the magnitude of this issue. There are people who are passionate about it. I know Mr Pratt has had a number of letters over time. I have held the role of shadow minister for industrial relations twice, and there would be, I suspect, probably fewer than half a dozen letters that have ever come to me about this issue. That is not to say that that is the sole measure, but I do think that we need to move cautiously.
I know within the Liberal Party ranks here there are different views about this whole issue. I think the key going forward is to look at some solutions—and the on-the-spot fines is a relatively easy one that would, hopefully, tackle part of this issue. I think it is imperative that we have consultation. We do not want to be spoilers in this place, but we also do not want to cause distress to owners of pets, and we certainly do not want a situation where people could be injured or where homes and letterboxes are vandalised. I know that sounds a bit like an each-way bet, but, in fact, I do have an open mind, and I know that various colleagues of mine here—and I suspect on the other side as well—have mixed views about this whole situation.
I do think it is an issue that aggravates you more as you get older. It is more irritating as you get older in terms of things going off late at night than probably when you are 20, so we need to temper that. Those of us in this place who are over 50 need to balance our attitude on these issues and not impose all of our concerns on the community.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.48): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It sounds like you have had a verbal submission from Mr Mulcahy. The Greens’ office has had many lively discussions on this issue before I came here because even among four people there can be 10 opinions.
When a new and improved fireworks regime was created in 2004 via the Dangerous Substances Act 2004, the Labor government of the day agreed that the legislation would be reviewed independently from July 2005 and that that review would focus on social and environmental impacts. The ACT Greens, through the office of MLA Kerrie Tucker, were intimately involved in negotiations regarding this bill in fairly positive collaboration with the government and, at various times with others on the cross bench, and supported the bill through the Assembly.
However, in June 2005, the ACT government introduced and passed the Occupational Health and Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2005, delaying the conduct of review for two years and removing the need for the review to be conducted independently or to focus on social environment impacts. It appears that the reason for this came down to the financial cost involved in conducting the review in such a manner irrespective of whether this could compromise the integrity of the review.
Now that the government has finally begun a review of the Dangerous Substances Act, we have got the details and we can look at them and see how far the government has gone back on its 2004 promises. I would actually like to have spoken before the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .