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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4757 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We have come across this problem in the Assembly a number of times. Our own efforts to stop battery hen farming in the ACT have come up against national agreements on animal welfare codes of practice and food standards. Our desire to label genetically engineered food has come up against national food labelling standards. Our concerns about the impacts of the operations of the national electricity market, or of competition policy in general, have been pushed aside by agreements already made by Commonwealth and State governments at COAG.

Often the Assembly is not even aware that negotiations are taking place between States and Territories and the Commonwealth on a particular issue, nor of the negotiating position that the Government is taking at these meetings. Mr Moore's Bill goes a long way towards ensuring that Assembly members have the opportunity to influence at an early stage the agreements that are entered into by the ACT Government with other Australian governments. This will be a big improvement on the current situation, where the Assembly is often presented with a Bill which implements a national agreement over which members have had no influence. These Bills are presented as a fait accompli which the Assembly can amend only at the risk of incurring the wrath of the Commonwealth Government. This is very disempowering and goes against our desire to make the operations of this Assembly more participative and inclusive.

This Bill provides a better balance between the interests of non-Government Assembly members in having a say over what happens in the ACT and the interests of the ACT Government in negotiating interstate agreements. We look forward to seeing how this Bill operates in practice, and urge whichever party is in power in the next Assembly to cooperate fully in its implementation.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (4.29): Mr Speaker, just briefly on this Bill, I have indicated publicly before, as has the Chief Minister, that we consider that it is a reasonable position to be in to have a requirement like this placed on government. The reality, of course, is that governments that enter into agreements at national fora need to be able to come back and carry the agreements through to completion by - often, anyway - enacting legislation, and that means winning the support of members of this place in the ACT's instance. I see this as a logical extension of the reality of minority government within the ACT. It is another transition, if you like, towards a rather different form of government in the ACT to the kind that exists in other places; but it is a transition which is appropriate and which, I think, does reflect the nature of the political system in the ACT.

I do take some exception to being lectured by the members of the Opposition, particularly given that when they were in this position they never discussed matters of the kind discussed at interstate fora. We, in fact, have done so - not on all occasions, I concede; but we have done so in a number of cases. Since Mr Whitecross's jaw looks as though it is dragging along the floor, let me give him a couple of examples - in respect of the Government's policy on X-rated videos and in respect of the matters to do with legal aid. On both of those matters the Government briefed - - -

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