Page 3186 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
communities around Australia who wish that they had never heard of dieldrin or DDT or any of those sorts of chemicals, and appropriate regulation, appropriate scrutiny, at a national level is in all of our interests. It is also in the ACT's interest, of course, to avoid any sort of duplication of effort in the regulation of these chemicals. We are a small jurisdiction, and if we can avoid having to carry out detailed work in registration and analysis on our own behalf it is certainly much more efficient for us.
Mr Humphries made the point that we should make a judgment in each case in which the ACT is sought by the Commonwealth as the vehicle for moving this kind of national scheme ahead. I agree absolutely with Mr Humphries that we must examine very closely every issue that comes before us from the Commonwealth. It is certainly my intention that we scrutinise each issue as closely as Mr Humphries would want. It is also my intention to bring to this Assembly the motion that this Assembly grant to the Commonwealth the power to make laws for us. I think that is appropriate scrutiny of the matter and it is the sort of scrutiny I intend to continue with.
The legislation the Commonwealth wishes to bring forward will proceed only on the proviso that there is an intergovernmental agreement signed between the ACT and the Commonwealth and aimed at protecting the ACT's rights under the proposed scheme. Again, there is a further level of scrutiny there. The agreement that will be signed does ensure that the ACT is treated on an equal footing with all other jurisdictions, both in terms of administering the scheme as well as our rights to renegotiate with the Commonwealth our participation in the scheme at some later date, if that should become necessary.
There is a further aspect I would like to inform members on, and that concerns our very close relations with the State of New South Wales. We are geographically surrounded by New South Wales and, clearly, in a scheme such as this that geographical situation has particular importance. As part of the agreement on this national scheme, there is a clause providing that, if New South Wales does not enact or at any time repeals or amends or does not amend agricultural and veterinary chemicals legislation, which results in substantially different laws applying in that State and the ACT, the ACT again has the right to renegotiate with the Commonwealth the form the agricultural and veterinary chemicals legislation takes as it applies in the ACT. So we do have that double level of protection for our Territory's rights.
I thank members for their support of the motion. I also thank them for making their time available to get a briefing on it. The fact that members are willing to be fully informed on what is a very important matter, because it does involve this Assembly handing over some part of its autonomy to the Commonwealth, is very significant.
I would like to say, in conclusion, that I found Mr Stevenson's comments quite extraordinary. I can only conclude that he has completely changed his mind about the basis on which he stood for this Assembly, which was to abolish it. We have just heard Mr Stevenson making an impassioned argument for the constitutionality not only of this Assembly but also of our right to make laws.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .