Page 3125 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, I have written to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Independents in this Assembly advising them of this motion and offering them the opportunity for briefing on the matter. I am aware that some members have taken up that opportunity, and I commend to the Assembly the course of action that is embodied in my motion. As I said, Madam Speaker, this is not the first time that this Assembly has been asked to provide model legislation for the Commonwealth. On every occasion that that occurs I will seek the consent of this Assembly to that course of action.
It is my general view that the Assembly is in charge of its own destiny, and to allow another parliament to legislate on our behalf is a significant step. However, Madam Speaker, in this particular case, and in previous cases, that step has been as a result of coordinated national decision making. In this case it was the October 1990 Special Premiers Conference which identified the need for this national registration scheme for agricultural and veterinary chemicals. Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the Assembly and, as I have said, members have had the opportunity for briefing. I thank those who have taken advantage of that opportunity for the time that they have put into this matter.
MS SZUTY (3.59): Madam Speaker, this is an unusual step for the ACT Government and the Assembly to be involved with. However, the Chief Minister did inform MLAs that she would be moving this motion today. She also informed members about the terms and the reasons for moving it. I am pleased to say that I took the opportunity to receive a detailed briefing from the Chief Minister's officers about this matter. At that briefing, which my colleague Mr Moore also attended, those officers informed us that the Commonwealth could have gone ahead regardless of whether or not the Assembly of the ACT agreed with what was happening. The Commonwealth thought it fitting to write to the Chief Minister to inform her of what they proposed to do and to seek the Assembly's consent. I think it appropriate that they took that action and I also think it appropriate that this Assembly consent to this motion.
Debate (on motion by Mr Cornwell) adjourned.
PRISONERS (INTERSTATE TRANSFER) BILL 1993
Debate resumed from 17 June 1993, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.01): Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party will be supporting this Bill. I would like to thank the Minister for providing me with a briefing on elements of this Bill prior to this week's sitting. Like some other legislation which has recently been dealt with by the house, this Bill does not change the law in any significant respect. It merely reconstitutes the law as an ACT enactment rather than a Federal one. Prisoners are routinely transferred to and from the ACT, Madam Speaker, for reasons of welfare, to face charges standing in other jurisdictions and reasons of that kind. That transfer presently occurs under Commonwealth law, the Transfer of Prisoners Act of the Commonwealth. With the patriation of our court system and our criminal justice system, it is appropriate for this process to be governed by an ACT law, as it is in all the other jurisdictions in this country. No change in policy or practice of any significance is being proposed here; nor, I think, do we need at this stage to consider such.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .