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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 537 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

It was a silly piece of law. It was inspired out of silliness, and it made this Assembly look absolutely stupid.

Those are the words of Mr Berry, who took the Liberal Party and the Independents to task on the issue of cannabis - a piece of legislation which he said was put in place far too quickly, without consulting and all sorts of other things. Today we can say exactly the same thing about the amendment to the Holidays Act. This Bill is silly because it sends a message to Canberrans that at a time like this we can somehow afford more holidays than other States and Territories. Make no mistake: This Bill will make it harder on businesses. This Bill will make this Assembly look silly, because it is likely to have unintended consequences. We will probably end up in court, because this Assembly did not have time to get more legal opinions to determine whether this was the way to go.

I make no apologies for warning everybody who wants to support this legislation, particularly because of the 36 hours we had to look at this Bill. It is clear that you could drive a truck through it. There were probably ways that Mr Berry could achieve the end he has tried to achieve here, but this is not the way to do it. Instead of allowing us time to consider these issues, or even bothering to ask those most affected by the impact that it will have on businesses, it seems that the majority of this Assembly is simply willing to give it the tick, regardless of the impact. I remind the Greens that earlier this week they said that they did not want to debate a Bill that has been on the table since June, because they had not had time to consult.

Ms Tucker: Which Bill are you talking about? That was your consultation that had not occurred.

Ms Horodny: Which Bill? It is because you had not consulted since June, not us.

MRS CARNELL: I am sorry; you are wrong. It has been on the table since June. You said you needed to consult more people.

Ms Tucker: Because you had not consulted.

Ms Horodny: Because you had not done it yourself.

MRS CARNELL: Absolute reality, Mr Speaker. I am sorry; no-one has consulted on this piece of legislation; nobody has consulted at all. Have they consulted with anyone on this Bill? Has anybody consulted? You can whinge, but has anybody consulted? The answer is no. As I said earlier, Ms McRae has had on the table in the Assembly for a long time a motion that Government Bills should not be introduced into this place without a full run-down of the consultation procedures. Where has that gone now? Where is that principle, Mr Speaker? No, it is Mr Berry who is being arrogant here and using the word "consultation" when it suits him and, for that matter, I would have to say, the rest of this Assembly, too. When it suits you, you consult; when it does not, it is right out the window. If I am required to gazette this Bill tomorrow, then I want to make it patently clear to those on the crossbenches right now that I do not want to be associated with a law that could well come back to bite us at considerable cost, both legally and economically.

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