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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2847 ..

Mr Moore: There might be a Green who holds the balance of power in the upper house.

MS HORODNY: That is right. We are obviously a unique community here in the ACT, as indeed you could argue that each State in Australia has a unique situation. It may have unique abilities to enact certain laws, depending on the political make-up, et cetera. It may take advantage of certain political make-up that it has, and it may want to move ahead on certain issues and provide the lead in certain areas. So, I believe that that exemption under that Act is a very sensible provision. It is there to be used. I would again urge the Minister to do the right thing and to do what he needs to do to deliver the wishes of this Assembly.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.10): Mr Speaker, I wanted to add something to what I was saying before. I mentioned the national competition principles. I have just been advised - and I understand that I will be receiving written confirmation of this - that Dr Robyn Sheen from the National Competition Unit within the Chief Minister's Department has had a chance to examine the amendments which have been put forward and which effectively provide for these provisions to be in place in the legislation. She has given the advice that, in her view, the provisions do offend against the national competition principles and may have the effect of putting at risk the sum of $6.7m, which is the payment the ACT is due to receive in 1997-98 under the national competition principles.

I do not make that comment as a threat in any way. I simply say to the Assembly that it is the advice we have had from the expert employed within the ACT Government to monitor such things.

Ms Horodny: Perhaps we will need to have a look at that whole thing again, then.

MR HUMPHRIES: Perhaps we do need to look at it again; but we need to do so in the context of deciding how we weigh up the costs versus the benefits of a step like the one we are proposing to take today. I am simply saying to the Assembly that this is what the advice we have received says. If members in this place do not believe that that is the advice we are receiving, I suggest that they talk to Dr Sheen. She is quite happy to talk to members of this place and explain to them what it is that she understands the national competition principles mean for the ACT.

She advises that she does not believe that there is any power to apportion. There is no concept of apportionment of payments based on the extent of compliance with the national competition principles. She understands that there is a requirement that payments be made in their entirety on the basis of jurisdictions complying with their obligations in their entirety. I raised this point because it was an important point as far as members of this place were concerned, I remind them, when the question of the national competition principles came up in respect of the trading hours legislation. Some members in this place, particularly members of the Labor Party - and I think Mr Corbell was one of them - were very quick to raise the question of whether we were putting national competition payments at risk on the basis of our legislating for trading hours.

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