Page 438 - Week 02 - Thursday, 14 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
controls legislation or controls specific activities within States and Territories. I think the principle behind the Senate initially was that the different States could get together and agree on things that were going to be done throughout Australia. I think that principle is a good one. Obviously, why have situations where one State does something so that when you meet at the border you have to change trains because there are different size rails? So, there are certainly many things that could be agreed upon.
There are two ways of achieving it. One is that the States and Territories get together and say, "Let us agree on this particular point". Another is to say, "Let us give the power to the Commonwealth, particularly if they are prepared to give us some sort of incentive for doing that, perhaps some money", as may be the case in this general area. I know that there can be the situation where, with the different States all passing exactly the same legislation, it may be that it comes into effect on different dates. They might have some problems locally and it takes longer. I think that could be fairly easily handled by the State saying, "On 1 September 19-whatever, this law will become active in each of the States". At any time that there is a suggested change, exactly the same thing could be done.
I wanted to highlight the point about whether it is best to pass powers along to the Commonwealth Government - this may be somewhere in between because of the way it has been done - or whether it is best to say, "Yes, when we get together we will agree; we will pass our identical legislation in the ACT. It will be wholly and solely our legislation and we will have no other involvement with the Commonwealth Government because that may not be necessary".
Mr Berry: That is a strange position for an abolitionist.
MR STEVENSON: I was going to say that I think we should pass all the legislation across to the Commonwealth, but I left it out deliberately.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (10.46), in reply: I would like to thank members for their support in relation to this motion.
Mr Humphries: Especially Mr Kaine.
MS FOLLETT: Yes, indeed. I thank the Opposition for their indication that it is a matter on which there would be a bipartisan position. It is a matter which I did discuss with Mr Kaine, as he said, and I appreciate his support.
There is one issue that I would like to clarify for the record, Madam Speaker, and it relates to the nature of the legislation that will be enacted. I would like to make it very clear that this scheme relates only to the regulation of light vehicles. In that respect it is in contrast to the national heavy vehicle scheme, which also addressed the question of charging. The matter we have before us is really only to do with regulation. That is specified in the motion, but it does seem to have caused a little bit of confusion in certain quarters.
On the matter of charging, it is true that the ACT does have lower registration charges for light vehicles than a lot of other jurisdictions and I think it is important to note that these will not be affected by our passing the motion that is before us today. Most members have spoken about the advantages of having a consistent regulatory scheme and I, of course, totally support that. It is an important issue of micro-economic reform.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .