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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 3213 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

This is a particularly serious issue of precedent that I believe has not yet been given a great deal of consideration. In fact, we know that it has been given a very small amount of consideration because yesterday there appeared on our table a draft copy of the legislation, which I must say I appreciated. It arrived yesterday afternoon. Some time after that legislation was circulated Mr Humphries got a note and, to be fair to him, he delivered it as soon as he received it, because I could tell from the time on the fax. It was delivered to members very quickly. The note was from parliamentary counsel saying, "Look, we have a problem with the way this legislation goes. It might not be able to start on exactly the same day as the Act itself and therefore it may be better to do it this way". I am paraphrasing, but that is the implication of what was said, and I believe I have presented that fairly to the Assembly. That being the case, Mr Speaker, we know that Mr Humphries barely had time to look at this himself before he distributed it to members. That does not stop him looking at it later and then coming back to members and saying, "No, we have had a change", as he had done with the original piece of legislation that he had provided for us.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that this is a significant precedent. It is something that we cannot deal with lightly. As much as I would like to stop this legislation completely, I have moved this amendment because I consider it a serious matter. Setting a precedent is always a serious matter for members to consider. Considering that the issue has been raised in most members' minds for only less than an hour, we ought to have time to consider it. The best way to deal with it, of course, would be to postpone the legislation, and I am very happy to do that if the Minister will agree. Failing that, Mr Speaker, we should at least consider this amendment seriously and go back to the conventional commencement time instead of the commencement time that we have here.

Mr Speaker, the reality is that Mr Humphries and his colleague Mr De Domenico have introduced some shonky legislation. The original legislation was the subject of a great deal of debate on the fundamental issue itself, and that had holes in it. As I recall, members in this Assembly were warning you that the legislation was inadequate. I am warning you again - I warned you again in the last debate - that the legislation is inadequate. I warned you in the previous debate that the legislation was inadequate in terms of its definition of "supermarket", and you have not plugged that hole yet.

I believe that we should adjourn this debate and come back to it. This further bit of shonky legislation sets a brand-new precedent by saying, "This Act commences, or shall be taken to have commenced, on 9 September 1996". Not only that, Mr Speaker; Mr Humphries a little while ago interjected and said, "Yes, but it still has to be gazetted".

Mr Humphries: That is right.

MR MOORE: He now nods his head and says, "That is right". But that does not appear here in the legislation as well, so from now on can we put anything in there and it still has to be gazetted? Mr Speaker, can you control that man? I am the one with the floor, not Mr Humphries. If he wants time to speak he will have to extend the time for this debate, Mr Speaker. He has prevented members from speaking. A whole series of questions still need to be answered, and he is not going to be able to answer them for members, he is not going to be able to answer them for the public, and he is not going to be able to answer them even for his own backbench.

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