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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2385 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

Yet they are trying to say that they are interested in taking on the views of all the committee. You cannot have it both ways. Either we are having a Planning Committee inquiry into this matter and they are going to consider all the issues and report back to the Assembly in a few months' time or we are going to plough ahead with it, in which case, as we said this morning, the inquiry is not necessary. I think we should be very careful about having it both ways.

As Mr Moore pointed out in a couple of interjections, Mrs Carnell engaged in a little bit of sophistry when she said that it was quite normal to pass legislation and have a committee inquiry going at the same time. There is a world of difference between having a committee inquiry into the correct policies in relation to retail space and having a committee to monitor the implementation of a piece of legislation. That is not what this committee inquiry is about. It is wrong for Mrs Carnell to misrepresent the inquiry in that way and to misrepresent what her party has done in this matter. That also ought to be a matter of concern.

Mr Speaker, as was pointed out by my colleague Mr Berry, perhaps the matter of most concern is that the Minister who introduced this legislation and who is the Government's advocate of this legislation has not been available to hear the arguments put in this place, to hear the claims about this Bill, to put his point of view in relation to those claims and perhaps to be persuaded by some of them. He is the Minister whom Mrs Carnell, under the administrative orders, has made responsible for the trading hours legislation, yet he is not here to explain Government policy in relation to this matter.

Mr Humphries: He is representing the Territory at a national meeting.

MR WHITECROSS: He is not here. I am sure that he had a good reason for not being here. Mr Humphries says that he is at a national meeting. None of us on this side of the house are questioning the importance of the meeting that he had to attend. None of us are criticising Mr De Domenico for not being here tonight, but what we are saying is that we do not think it is appropriate that the Minister who, under the administrative arrangements, has carriage of this matter for the Government is not here tonight to listen to the debate, to explain the Government's policies in this matter, to hear the arguments of other members in this place and to refute them or accept them according to their strength. It is not really good enough. It is especially not good enough when you consider that members in this place did not have the opportunity earlier in the week of hearing his views in relation to the trading hours legislation because he would not answer any questions. We are in the absurd position in this place that we have sought to clarify issues relating to this Bill through question time and have been denied the opportunity to hear the Minister's point of view. On Tuesday we were told, "You will get your chance to debate this on Thursday". Now we come to the debate on Thursday, and the Minister is not here to give us the benefit of his views. It is a completely unsatisfactory state of affairs.

There are two points here. The first is that we should not be proceeding with this legislation if we are to give any meaning and any teeth to this Planning and Environment Committee inquiry, and we should not consider this legislation while the Government proponent of the legislation, Mr De Domenico, is not here to explain it, to justify it and to put the case for it. He is the person who, for the last year and a half, has been the

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