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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2950 ..

Mr Corbell: Following extensive community consultation.

MR STEFANIAK: She had flagged that about 12 months before but the drafting had only just been done. There were real concerns about that Bill, especially from the Housing Industry Association.

Mr Corbell: And what did you do? You adjourned it to allow debate.

MR STEFANIAK: No, it was passed, Mr Corbell. In fact, there was a division, 10 : 7, and it got through on the 10th. Mr Speaker, in this particular instance we have had this issue before this Assembly since the August sittings. I think Mr Hargreaves indicated that he had some 301 representations. We all have, Mr Speaker. I have had a number of representations. I have had some very concerned people on both sides of the fence come in to see me. I have talked to them. In some instances I have made my position quite clear to them after discussing it with them. Certainly, there has been significant representation and significant consultation on this issue, and now we have Mr Osborne's Bill and a number of amendments in plain English. I think it is pretty obvious what the amendments and what the Bill seek to do.

I am somewhat amazed, like Mr Kaine, at the points raised and the fact that three public officials have also raised them. In a way I tend to share his concern. I think the DPP should have corresponded with the Attorney, and I am a little bit amazed at some of the other stuff there. But, be that as it may, we have had a stack of consultation.

Mr Berry probably has been the most frank in terms of what this motion for adjournment is all about. He has made it quite clear that he does not like this Bill and he does not like the amendments. He has very much a pro-choice attitude. He always has had, to his credit, I think, in the 12 years or whatever it is he has been in this place. He has indicated that he wants to oppose it, and if he cannot oppose it but can adjourn it, fine, because that suits his aim. He does not want this passed in any form. At least he is straightforward about it. Other members are just trying to make a bit of a sham about adjourning it, saying, "Let us have more consultation, let us delay the matter further". I think they are quite wrong.

Mr Stanhope indicated that he wanted to adjourn it. He also made a rather amazing comment, given that we have just had, I think, 200 pages of penalty legislation. He said he is not up on this penalty unit stuff, which I found a bit amazing from the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Attorney-General. Maybe he is not really across this particular issue also. I found that concerning. I also found his comment a bit strange in relation to Chamberlain and Munich; as if, were Chamberlain in this chamber, he would not adjourn it but would debate it, and we were wrong because we were being like Neville Chamberlain. Far from it, Mr Speaker. I would think Neville Chamberlain would have adjourned it so that he would not have to make a decision, when quite clearly, at Munich, he did, and a small country got sold down the drain as a result of the appeasement there.

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