Page 3830 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
WATER POLLUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
Debate resumed from 13 October 1994, on motion by Mr Wood:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR HUMPHRIES (8.22): Madam Speaker, obviously, members of the community are concerned about water quality and water pollution in the ACT. We see this legislation as being a very important way of dealing with it. I believe that my colleague Mr Stefaniak would be much more capable than I am of enunciating those important principles.
MR STEFANIAK (8.22): Madam Speaker, I apologise for not being here when the debate was called on. I had to hang up on a Federal colleague with whom I was on the phone. The Liberal Party supports the amendments to the Water Pollution Act. I thank the Minister for making his departmental officials available for consultation. I have had a chance to talk to them on a couple of occasions. They have been helpful in relation to the various points I have raised. I note that there was some concern amongst experts in relation to this legislation that perhaps the principal Act still has a number of problems, one of which I might highlight to the Minister in the course of my speech. However, the proposed amendments to sections 20 and 21 go some way towards alleviating some of the difficulties that have been encountered with this Act.
The Bill extends the maximum period for a licence from one year to three years. I note that my Assembly colleague Helen Szuty has some concerns about this which, I understand, she will take up with the Minister. Those concerns may be alleviated a bit when one considers that this Bill allows a licence to be granted, but with conditions, which is something that was not able to be done before. My understanding is that, in the past, a licence has rarely, if ever, not been granted. In accordance with the Act, the department is able to make requisitions. Until those requisitions are satisfied - a company or a body might have to come back on a number of occasions before it gets its licence, and the department can keep making requisitions - a licence will not be granted. I think that the various amendments will help to streamline that to an extent, because they enable the licence to be given but with special conditions attached. I certainly hope that the department will monitor that - I am sure that it will - and ensure that those conditions are abided by. Apart from that, the Bill removes the sexist language in the Act, as do most of our more recent amendments dealing with legislation that dates back more than five years or so. That is a non-contentious issue. It forms a substantial part of the Bill.
This Act is important. It relates specifically to the granting of licences to builders and developers. The people who tend to get licences are regulars, I understand. The people who normally get the licences comply with the law. The law is also terribly important in that there are a number of people who do not bother getting a water pollution licence under the Water Pollution Act. The department refers to such people as "cowboys". There are provisions in the Act that take account of their activities. I understand that, so far, since the Act has been in force, and certainly in the last five years, there has been only one criminal prosecution under it. I understand that there was no application for damages in that case, quite possibly because the damage caused was not significant. That prosecution was some four years ago. So, in terms of the penal provisions, thankfully, there has not been much of a need to prosecute people in relation to this Act.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .