Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2201 ..

MS FOLLETT (5.13): Mr Speaker, I want to raise a couple of issues which I feel may assay the debate even further. As my colleague Mr Wood has said, we are supporting this Bill. We are supporting it in acknowledgment and recognition largely of the input that the community has had to date. I note that there are numbers of people at Gungahlin who have done a considerable amount of work to assist in the development of the plans for the Gungahlin Town Centre. I also recognise that a great deal of the preliminary consultation and the framing of the town centre were actually done under my colleague Mr Wood's excellent ministry; so, it must be good.

There are a couple of issues that concern me, and I think it is only right to put them on the record. As Mr Wood said, the debate on this Bill is premature or the Bill itself is woefully late. That fact cannot be escaped. It is the case that we have had only a week to look at this Bill. It is not a matter that is urgent; the Government has not been honest enough to declare it urgent and, therefore, require that the Assembly deal with it as a matter of urgency, because it knows it does not have a case. It is not urgent. But what the Government has done is put the rest of the Assembly members well and truly over a barrel on this matter. We have before us a choice of supporting this Bill or being seen to be the agents of delay in the much needed development of the Gungahlin Town Centre. That is not a fair or an honourable position for the Government to be taking. The Bill should have been presented, if it was required to be passed before 1 July, a month ago. That is a fact. It has had implications as well. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which I chair, had very little time indeed to examine this Bill; but examine it we did. We had a number of comments upon the Bill, as I said yesterday. We are debating the Bill today, without having the benefit of a formal response from the Government to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report. I think that is a serious matter, given that there were serious issues raised in the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report. I have discussed that with the Minister and the public servants concerned. I acknowledge that the Minister is moving a number of amendments to his Bill to take account of some but not all of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's concerns.

There remains one concern, which I think is a serious matter but which is of an extremely technical nature. It relates to the way in which the Bill is drafted and to quite a variety of sections within the Bill. The Scrutiny of Bills adviser, Professor Whalan, took one view on those aspects of the Bill. As I am advised today by the public servants, the parliamentary draftsman has taken another view. I am not technically qualified to judge between the two, but I would have liked the opportunity to take the draftsman's view back to Professor Whalan and ask that very eminent, experienced and erudite gentleman: "Is this a reasonable response?". I do not have that opportunity, simply because the Bill was presented so late. I do think it is very regrettable that we are having this debate at the eleventh hour and without the benefit of all of the information that I, as the chair of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, would have liked to have available.

I would also like to echo the comments made by Mr Wood about consultation on the Bill. I know that there has been a great deal of consultation in the lead-up to this point in the development of the Gungahlin Town Centre, but I have not had the opportunity of any consultation whatsoever with my constituents at Gungahlin on the precise terms of this Bill. The Government - this Government of all governments - is saying to us, "Trust us. We have picked up all their concerns". Well, I do not trust you.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .