Page 5048 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 12 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, I make available to the Assembly and I table an opinion dated 19 September 1990 by a principal legal officer in my Law Office, namely:
Lakes (Amendment) Bill 1990 - Opinion by Government Law Office, dated 19 September 1990.
Mr Speaker, this Opposition has decided to press along without any cooperative work with our Government. That has typified its role over the last 12 months in opposition. Its members believe that since they are born to rule in this town they do not have to behave like an opposition.
Mr Speaker, my current advice is that officer to officer level contact with DASETT suggests that the Commonwealth may be considering making legislation which complements a proposed Lakes Bill. Such complementary legislation would remove a number of the legal objections that have been made in the opinion that I have just circulated. But notwithstanding this, the Leader of the Opposition made it clear in her introductory speech that she thought this Bill would apply to Lake Burley Griffin. They were the words she used. In fact, Mr Speaker, her words were, quoting from Hansard:
The need for this Bill is highlighted by the increasing number of sailing vessels on Lake Burley Griffin at night.
There is a worthwhile motive here, although it was done and drafted outside the processes made available, and printing has been done at a cost to the ACT revenue. A few words of consultation with me or the Law Office would have prevented this anomaly and this mistake which would be laughable if it was not sad. It has effectively delayed an amendment that we could have agreed on last September.
Mr Speaker, even if the Commonwealth were to make legislation it should be complementary to legislation which the ACT Government makes. Certainly, we need to note that, if the Opposition wants to amend its Bill in the light of the legal advice that I have made available, it needs to consider my remarks to ensure that it properly reflects the appropriate rules on collision as well. I will not go into that; it will detain the house.
MR CONNOLLY (10.56): Mr Speaker, the Government's bad faith in this matter is breathtaking. If this Government was not already held in contempt by the community, this would show how this Government regards this house as laughable. The community holds you in the same view.
Private members' business may be regarded by commentators as perhaps falling into two categories - the political issues where there is a partisan difference across the floor of the Assembly, and the non-political issues of concern to the community where no partisan political point is sought to be taken or gained and where members bring a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .