Page 504 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 June 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I note that the amendment to the Act entails no additional expenditure. Presumably there is a self-funding element in the scheme of the legislation, and I applaud that of course.
The Bill also goes on to instruct the water pollution authority to prepare a manual, and this manual's contents are set out in proposed section 37(c)(2). It says:
The Manual shall specify the methods to be used by analysts in analysing samples of water or waste for the purposes of the Act.
The manual is to be, I note, a disallowable instrument under the Act, and the things that are to go into this manual are things that are presently contained in, to some extent at least, the Water Pollution Regulations.
The reason for this change apparently, according to the explanatory memorandum, is that amending regulations is too slow and cumbersome a process to adapt quickly in the way I have already suggested that we should be able to adapt to changes in technology. That of course is a little curious. Regulations themselves were originally intended as a way of dealing with changes where the Act itself was too slow or cumbersome to be amended, or too slow or cumbersome for finetuning. Of course, we have now reached the point where regulations are a little too unwieldy to use as vehicles for finetuning, and we have a further subordinate piece of legislation - namely, a manual in this case - which could be changed, presumably, more easily from time to time.
It was said earlier today in a previous debate that integration with the requirements of surrounding States - in particular, New South Wales - was of vital importance in ensuring that the situation in the ACT was not out of kilter with those places. New South Wales of course is now in the process of dramatically beefing up its legislation dealing with pollution. When those laws are in place, New South Wales will have the toughest anti-pollution laws in Australia.
Fears have been expressed by some people, notably opponents of those laws, that this may drive some industry and some business out of New South Wales, because those that are offended by these laws are not prepared to comply with the heavy onus it places on them not to pollute the environment. That, of course, would be a tragedy, because it would mean that the State would be left to some extent in an isolated position.
Having taken the lead on important anti-pollution legislation, having set a standard for the rest of Australia to follow, it might then find itself regretting its high principles because surrounding States, other places in Australia, have not followed that lead, and it would be desirable for businesses and industry to export their business, indeed export their pollution, to other
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .