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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 2 Hansard (20 May) . . Page.. 361 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

the temptation. Let us reduce the risk of being put through the ordeal of being assaulted at knifepoint. If you have a reasonable excuse to have a knife in your possession, this legislation will not affect you. What I am aiming to do is to take the knives away from people who have no use for them apart from causing harm.

As it stands, our police have no power to prevent knife attacks. They can be reactive, but they are not permitted to be proactive. If shops are outlawed from selling knives to minors, and police have the power to take knives away from people who carry them in a public place for no reason, we are heading in the right direction. Mr Speaker, I am certain that this Bill will make the ACT a better place in which to live. In tabling this document, I urge my Assembly colleagues to support the amendments as an investment in the future safety of all our neighbourhoods. I commend this Bill to the house.

Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.

MS TUCKER (10.42): I present the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Bill 1998, together with its explanatory memorandum.

Title read by Clerk.

MS TUCKER: I move:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

Mr Speaker, it is with pleasure that I today table the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Bill 1998 and the accompanying explanatory memorandum. The purpose of this legislation is quite simple. It is to reinstate rights for people to appear before the Supreme Court to challenge actions by the Minister or his officers taken under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 and the Heritage Objects Act.

As members of the last Assembly will be aware, the origins of this Bill trace back to 1996, when the Government, through its amendments to the Land Act, removed the open standing of persons under the AD(JR) Act to challenge the lawfulness of government decisions made under the Buildings (Design and Siting) Act 1964, which was repealed in 1996, the Land Act and the Heritage Objects Act. This directly contradicted the position - recommendation 95 - of the Stein report into the administration of the ACT leasehold system. The Stein report said that any person should be entitled to approach the AAT or the Supreme Court to civilly enforce breaches of the Land Act without being required to establish common law standing.

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