Page 4808 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
situation has worked well for many decades. Mr Duby said, "Well, we have got power in all other areas, so we should have power in this". That does not necessarily follow as a corollary. The situation has worked well.
Mr Duby: How do you know? How do you know that it has worked well?
MR STEVENSON: Have there been major problems because of the power?
Mr Duby: Yes, there have been.
MR STEVENSON: You have not said what they were.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson and Mr Duby, go through the Chair, if you do not mind.
MR STEVENSON: So, there are serious concerns about this proposed legislation. Suggestions have been put that there has not been sufficient consultation in the matter. It would certainly seem that that is the case. If we rely so heavily on the volunteer bush fire brigades, yet the association says that it is not happy with the situation, would it not be well to spend the time that is needed either for it to understand that everything is okay or for the Alliance to understand that everything is not okay? That would seem to be reasonable. Mr Lonergan, the president of that association, said that a number of changes proposed by the council have not been accepted.
Mr Duby: Yes.
MR STEVENSON: That is not disagreed with either. I think the best thing that we can do is adjourn the debate and wait until we have some consensus on this very important issue. The suggestion that what has occurred for 50 years could not see out another summer does not seem to have any validity. There is no particular problem. The Government has already said that it is prepared to accept liability, so how could that be a problem? I would like Mr Duby to answer this question, Mr Speaker: what other valid reason is there for this matter to proceed today? Why could it not be put off to allow the communication that, it has been said, has not occurred?
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (12.08): Mr Speaker, these monarchists opposite, who want to recreate the Crown in its full flavour, with all of its immunity, surprise me. I thought their agenda was slightly different - more like putting the torch to the monarchy than the opposite.
Ms Follett: Hear, hear!
MR COLLAERY: "Hear, hear!", the Leader of the Opposition says. But, certainly, there is a bit of scaremongering going on. This proposed law does not alter in any way the liability of the Crown in right of the ACT. There is still
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .