Page 1091 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 23 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
apparently doing - I say "apparently" because it takes a lot of reading of this material to find out what we are in fact doing - is adopting two pieces of Queensland legislation and turning them into ACT legislation, with some exceptions. There have been some bits left out. That may or may not be a good thing.
The interesting thing is that the Queensland legislation was enacted in March of this year. Now here, in June, five sitting days before 1 July, this legislation is put on the table. We were expected to come back today and please the Government by endorsing it. Madam Speaker, I find that very difficult to do. When you look at the Queensland legislation - there it is - there are two separate Acts. One of them runs to 432 sections and the other one runs to something of the order of 140 sections, both of them with considerable schedules, attachments and the like. In the period since last Wednesday, apart from anything else members of this Assembly have had to do - there are a few trifling matters on the agenda like debates on abortion and animal welfare, and a few other minor, inconsequential matters like that - the Government has expected us to fully analyse that major legislation, that I remind them has been on the books since March, and come back today and debate it intelligently. I submit, Madam Speaker, that that is totally unreasonable.
I have to ask the Chief Minister: Under those circumstances, should she not have given the Assembly a bit more information about this legislation than she gave us last Wednesday? What she said was fairly innocuous stuff - that this, in broad terms, in principle, is what this legislation does. I would ask: How the heck do we know that that is what it does? How do we know what the ramifications of these Bills are? I discovered that at clause 13 of the Financial Institutions (Application of Laws) Bill of 1992 we are conferring jurisdiction for some matters arising from this legislation on the Queensland Supreme Court.
Mr Connolly: Yes, as is everyone.
MR KAINE: Mr Connolly sits there. He obviously has had months to consider this. He knows what the ramifications of that are, presumably. Mr Connolly, of course, is a bit of a genius. He had months to look at this before dropping it on the table and telling us, "Just come back in four sitting days" - in fact, not four sitting days; it is only two sitting days since this was dropped on us - "and endorse it for us. We do not care whether you understand it. We do not care whether you have an opportunity" - as Mr Stevenson was saying earlier - "to consult with anybody on the matter to see whether anybody else has any objection to it. Just come back and give it the tick".
I do not know why, from a reading of these documents and the Chief Minister did not tell us, it is necessary to confer on the Supreme Court of Queensland jurisdiction in connection with an ACT law, and I do not know what the ramifications of that are.
Mr Connolly: Because all the other States have agreed.
MR KAINE: You will get your chance, no doubt, to give us the benefit of your wisdom, Mr Connolly. I do not know what the benefit, if any, of that is to the residents of the ACT. I just mention that one aspect in particular.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .