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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1855 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I understand that currently Australia has tougher safety standards than New Zealand in relation to baby car seats. That means that seats made here that do not comply with New Zealand standards will be able to be sold in New Zealand. This is not good enough. I think, as an Assembly, we have an obligation to think much more closely about this issue.

MR KAINE (Minister for Urban Services and Minister for Regulatory Reform) (4.41), in reply: I welcome the in-principle support that the Opposition and the crossbenchers have given to this Bill.

Mr Moore: Kerrie opposed it.

Ms Tucker: You are thanking only some of the crossbenchers.

MR KAINE: Okay. It is one of those interesting Bills where one could perhaps ask: What is the benefit to the Territory of entering into an agreement like this at the Commonwealth level? The benefits are sometimes difficult to define. It may be that no particular benefit flows to the Territory as a result of our entering into this kind of agreement. But I think we would be foolish not to be a part of the system so that we can take advantage of any opportunity that does come our way.

How we get to that point is a question that I know vexes some. But it seems to me that members of the Assembly have to accept the fact that we do operate under a system in which we elect a Chief Minister who then appoints an Executive, and there is an executive government that is responsible for this Territory. That executive government has an obligation to act in connection with other executive governments on a basis of equality. We simply cannot go along to the executive governments of other States and Territories and, indeed, of the Commonwealth and say, "We really cannot negotiate with you". I think people have to accept the fact that, if they are not part of the executive government, very often the executive government has to act for them; we cannot all be part of the process.

In this case, of course, the agreement is something that is being entered into at the Commonwealth level. But, in order for each of the States and Territories to participate, we have to enact our own legislation so that we become part of it. We could stand aside and say, "We are not going to be part of it; we will not enact legislation; we do not want to participate in any benefits that flow from these international arrangements". If we were short-sighted enough, we could say that. I think at the end of the day there has to be the recognition that not every member of this place is a member of the executive government. Executive government has an obligation and a responsibility once in a while to make decisions that are binding on this place and this community. I cannot imagine the circumstances in which, after the event, this Assembly would say, "You did the wrong thing; you cannot speak for me." - and, as Mr Moore says - "Therefore, we do not accept the action that you have taken".

Mr Humphries made the point that, if anybody does feel so strongly about it that they would not want us to enter into the agreement in an unqualified way, I suppose they could amend our legislation, as they could amend any other legislation. That then puts the Government in the position of having to go back to the Commonwealth, the States and

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