Page 6261 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (6.52): I understand the position that the Leader of the Opposition is coming from. I know that he has consistently held that policy since arriving in this chamber, and I suppose it is interesting that, of all evenings, this evening we should hear that view reiterated. I can understand that. What concerns me is that the ramifications of what is going to be done by this Bill have not been clearly spelt out. The Chief Minister ran through a whole series of problems and they have been presented.
I still am not aware of, for example, just what the impact of this measure on the ACT revenue is going to be and whether or not - - -
Mr Connolly: At least $1m.
MR MOORE: I hear an interjection, "At least $1m". If it is going to have that kind of ramification, is it appropriate for us to make that decision now? I would argue that it is not.
The other factor is: What is it going to do, therefore, for the last six months of this year? Should this Bill, in fact, be prepared and brought in as part of a budget strategy next year or should it be indicated by whoever is in this chamber next year that that is going to be the case? I think most of us would agree that Mr Kaine is going to be here in the chamber next year. He at least would have the option to go through this and do it properly and make sure that we do not get into the sort of situation that we have been in twice.
I strongly suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that, whilst he supports the concept of this Bill, he assure the people of Canberra that he will look at it and bring it back to the chamber at the beginning of the Second Assembly. That would be better than the Assembly trying to deal with it now in this fashion. We could get the principal Act from the table; we could all rush in and have 17 members - - -
Mr Collaery: You have had the Bill for a week.
MR MOORE: Mr Collaery says that we have had the Bill for a week. Whoopee! A point that Mr Stevenson has made again and again is that unless something is declared an urgent Bill it ought be on the table for a minimum of 30 days. It is a point that I agree with. There were a couple of times when, I have to say, I have been convinced by other people not to follow that course of action, although Mr Stevenson, of course, has remained consistent on that issue in this chamber right from the time he came here.
I would say that we certainly have some very good indications that there are some ramifications of this Bill that we are not sure of. There are certainly some indications that some of the issues that it raises are raised unintentionally. We have had this Bill for a week
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .