Page 2098 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 9 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.17): The Government will not be supporting this amendment. This may have made some sense if it was proposed to a Bill which made far-reaching reforms to the law in the ACT. The Bill, as agreed to by the Assembly to this point, the Government's amendments having been accepted, leaves the existing penalty regime in place. It is pointless, therefore, to have a sunset clause for what are the existing penalty regimes. All laws in the Territory are constantly reviewed. It is the prerogative of any private member at any stage to move for repeal or to change any law in the ACT. This proposal is simply unnecessary.
As Mr Moore pointed out, the Liberals seem to think it is necessary to have a sunset clause in this legislation which is effecting some change yet not necessary to have a sunset clause in their own drug law - the pharmacy methadone Bill - which would allow a junkie in every shopping centre. They want no sunset clause there, but a sunset clause here. One must suspect, Madam Speaker, that this is not a serious suggestion that the Assembly needs to review a law, which, of course, it can always do, and which any private member can move for, but rather a political stunt to try to again peddle some of this nonsense around the time of the next election. They are welcome to peddle their nonsense because we know that the community will reject it.
MR HUMPHRIES (12.19): Madam Speaker, I think Mr Connolly knows in his heart of hearts that what he has said today, and elsewhere, about this Bill is a little harder to sell in the community than what we have said today.
Mr Connolly: As opposed to what you said 18 months ago.
MR HUMPHRIES: The fact of life is that even I acknowledged, at that time, that these were significant changes to make to the law of the Territory. It is one thing for you to get up here today and say that these changes are important to make, that they are valuable reforms and that they are progressive, in Mr Berry's words; it is another thing to say that they are so insignificant in the effect they have on the law of the Territory that we have no need to review the situation in three years' time.
Mr Connolly: You can always review it.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is what you are saying. If we are going to review it in three years' time, let us put in the Bill the mechanism to force the Assembly to face fairly and squarely again the question as to whether it will renew this Act, leave it as it stands, or wipe out these amendments because they are not considered appropriate any longer.
Madam Speaker, this is important. This is an important amendment. I believe that those of us in this community who wish to see what effect this change has on the law and on the community should be able to force this thing to come back before the - - -
Mr Berry: Any time that you want to do something about it, use private members business.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .