Page 1221 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
oppose this Bill because it has any view that this Bill is, in its general intent, not a good thing, although we would certainly like to be able to debate certain aspects of it. The Liberal Party's concern centres around the lack of time that we have had to consider this legislation. That, I thought, was made quite clear by Mr Westende; but I will make it clear, if it is not clear already. This is a complicated matter. This is a very important and very significant piece of legislation. It is landmark legislation, and we saw it for the last time only a few days ago.
Mr Moore said that a number of utilities might become subject to this Bill over a period of time. There is power in the Bill for the Minister to prescribe certain essential services. We have already talked about gas. We have talked about telephones. We might talk about other things as well. At the end of the day some service providers will not be government agencies. They might not be large suppliers but in fact quite small suppliers. They might be private enterprise businesses trying to make a living. To talk about them being regulated by the Government is a serious step. Yet that is possible under this legislation. Not unreasonably, we felt that we should have the time to examine the implications of that kind of move. The prescribing of suppliers might or might not be subject to disallowance in this Assembly - I cannot recall from my reading of the legislation.
Mr Connolly: It is disallowable. It is done by regulation.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am assured that it is; but the fact of life is that it does present a very serious set of circumstances, one which the Assembly has to be prepared to debate - at short notice, perhaps - and which has implications for the way in which people conduct their business in the ACT, something which we are a little lightly putting to one side.
I am not saying - I repeat: I am not saying - that we do not have a deep concern about the unjustified and unwarranted withdrawal of services from people in genuine need. But it is one thing to say that in principle we are in favour of a compassionate approach by government and quite another to say that this legislation, in all its complexity and detail, ought to be rushed before the Assembly. Let me repeat that we will come to rue the haste in which we are considering some of these pieces of legislation. When amendments come forward - - -
Mr Moore: We have had the Law Reform Committee's report for ages.
MR HUMPHRIES: That report was tabled in the Assembly - - -
Mr Moore: But it is available. It has been available for months.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am sorry; I do not recall having seen it before. It was tabled in the Assembly only this week, as I recall, or late last week. Presumably, it was produced in the last three-week sitting break. Even if it was not, the Government had announced no intention of rushing this legislation through the Assembly in this sitting fortnight.
Mr Lamont: It is winter.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is not the point. I have a suggestion - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .