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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2435 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (12.17 am): Mr Speaker, I move:

That the following new clause be added to the Bill:

Page 5, line 9:

"13. Unless sooner repealed, this Act ceases to be in force at the end of 2 years after the day on which it is notified in the Gazette.".

This amendment relates to the sunset clause. Mr Berry earlier described this as the Government's loss of confidence in the Bill, saying that we are going to dump the whole thing after two years. That is not the intention at all. The Government intends, however, that the Assembly as a whole face up to the question of how this legislation operates over the next two years and compel it, as the Assembly which passed the legislation, to consider what the future of the legislation should be after a two-year period. In other words, if the legislation is deemed to have been successful it should be renewed as it stands. If the legislation has been unsuccessful it should be amended or even allowed to lapse. If it has been successful but could be more successful, it should be considered for extension in the way suggested by some in the course of this debate. Mr Speaker, a sunset clause triggers and requires consideration by the Assembly as to what will be the future operation of this legislation after two years, which, in my view, is more than long enough to consider how well this legislation might operate.

MR BERRY (12.18 am): This amendment just shows how dumb this piece of legislation is. The Government decided upon this as a smoke and mirrors exercise to try to convince the small shops community that they were doing something in response to the save our shops campaign which had its origins before the last election, no doubt promoted and sought by the Liberals opposite. At the end of the day they come up with a piece of legislation which does not do anything for the shopkeepers. They have not criticised it. It might do something for some; it will do some bad things to a lot of others. Of course, there has been an uproar about this legislation, an unexpected uproar. The Government thought, "We are doing nothing or little to help small businesses so the community ought to be conned by this"; but they have not been. They have been a wake-up to the thing from the word go.

Mrs Carnell: If it does not do anything why is anyone upset?

MR BERRY: This does not do anything much for businesses out there. It is another one of the Carnell confidence tricks, another media stunt. Mr Speaker, it deserves to be treated with contempt. This grandfather clause is really a demonstration to the Greens that what they are being caught up in is a confidence trick. It is about time that they woke up - - -

Mrs Carnell: Does that mean that the mental health legislation was a confidence trick?

MR BERRY: Mrs Carnell, you misrepresented what would happen with the mental health legislation once this afternoon and you are getting to the stage - - -

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