Page 3831 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is a need for the department and, indeed, the Government and this Assembly to be vigilant in terms of people who would breach the Act, and certainly people who would breach a licence. The safeguards are essential to ensure that a licence is not given or is given with very strict conditions. If toxic substances or pollutants of any description are released into our water system, not only is that bad for the Territory but it is also bad for everyone else in the Murray-Darling Basin. Members will, no doubt, be aware and cognisant of problems in the past when there were sewage outflows from the Lower Molonglo treatment plant. Thankfully, we have not seen that happen for two years. I note the very detailed improvements that have gone on to ensure that things like that do not happen again and that that source, which has the potential to be a major pollutant, produces good water into the river systems. Members would also be aware of problems with the Belconnen tip and some of the pollutants from there that flowed down into the Murrumbidgee River system. With respect to builders and developers, there have in the past been a number of stories and reports of run-offs from building sites and of pollutants getting into the water system. That is where I think this Act can have specific force, and that is relevant to the licences that have been given to date.
We have no problems with the legislation in principle. I indicate to the Minister that I will talk with him later about a concern we have in relation to what happens if the water system is polluted as a result of someone breaching this Act or as a result of someone acting in accordance with a licence. Section 29 of the Act, dealing with civil liability for waste, probably does the job of ensuring that, if someone does discharge waste into waters, even if they have a licence, they will be liable civilly under the Act. That would certainly apply, on my reading of the section, if they went over and above the terms of a licence. But the section is somewhat unclear. It is not worded well. That is something I would certainly like to take further with the Minister, as I feel that it may be sensible - especially if this debate does not conclude tonight - to consider an amendment to make that clearer than it is, even though I understand that this Act, together with the various other pollution Acts, will be consolidated midway through next year. Hopefully, a lot of the problems involved in these Acts could be improved. There are several. I found a potential problem only last week in relation to another Act. That might be something that could be addressed.
In relation to this Act, there are certainly some things that could be made a lot better. Indeed, section 29 is something that I would like to take up with the Minister to see whether there is any need to make that more effective in the interim, before the consolidated Act comes into force. Madam Speaker, I reiterate that the Opposition supports this Bill in principle.
MS SZUTY (8.30): In speaking to this Bill in principle, I wish to take the somewhat unusual step of raising a number of issues which I would like to see addressed over the next few weeks. At first glance, this Bill seems to be a simple and straightforward one - one of taking simple administrative measures to improve the process in the issuing, monitoring and reviewing of licences to discharge waste. However, at this time, I remain unconvinced that the proposed Government amendment to section 23 of the principal Act - the Water Pollution Act 1984 - is necessary.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .