Page 2899 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (12.12): Mr Connolly says that my amendments, if agreed to, would give the Assembly the right to handle the entire matter and would supposedly do away with the earlier requirement of the Minister to consult with the industry. That clearly is not correct.
Mr Connolly: But your amendments would not go through the consultation process.
MR STEVENSON: I do not quite understand. The Attorney-General said that my amendments would not go through the consultation process. We are having consultation here, one would think. I am simply leaving in the legislation the earlier directions that the Minister should consult with industry on codes of practice. The fact of including, at the end of all this, a requirement that it be presented to the Assembly for final approval in the same manner as any Bill is, I think, a simple thing.
Mr Connolly said that the Government cannot just dream up a code of practice and impose it on a business. When we look at the Animal Welfare Act, we had the unfortunate situation where the Government introduced legislation that we passed in the Assembly - although not I - and that had the effect of regulating entire industries. The effect of passing particular clauses would be to do things like outlaw racing in Canberra.
Mr Lamont: I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. I suggest that Mr Stevenson is sailing very close to reflecting on the decision of the Assembly.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Lamont. I would caution you to take that advice, please, Mr Stevenson, and continue. Be aware of that standing order, please.
MR STEVENSON: I am, Madam Speaker. Unfortunately, even though the legislation had the effect that it could prohibit horseracing in the ACT, we were asked to pass it, and it was indicated after a few days that the codes of practice were not going to be introduced until there was consultation with the industry. Unfortunately, the horse industry, the trotting industry, the dog industry, the circus industry, the rodeo industry, the pet industry and the aquarium industry were not consulted in this matter. I do not necessarily hold with the suggestion that everything is fine.
The question I would still ask the Minister is: Why not accept my amendments? He said that the way it is set up at the moment is the best for businesses to have a look at codes of practice, but that is not relevant because my amendment does not delete that requirement. I think it is an absolutely marvellous requirement that politicians should be required, by law, to consult with people. That is a wonderful thing. They often do not consult with people. Nevertheless, the clear question I still have is: Why not? After the Minister looks at various aspects of a code of practice there is some consultation with the industry. Who within the industry is yet to be determined. That is not laid down in black and white. If it is extensive, that is marvellous. If it is not extensive, that is not good. However, whatever it is, why should not this Assembly have the right then to look at this matter as we would any other amendment or Bill? The simple question I leave with the Attorney-General is: Why not?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .