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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 578 ..

layer of scrutiny on top of a layer of scrutiny that for the most part works pretty well, another minister in this government or his agents are saying, “No. We’re not interested. We don’t care about retrospectivity. We don’t care whether the Scrutiny of Bills Committee may or may not say anything about the retrospectivity. The most important thing is that we have our way and we get our legislation through without proper scrutiny.”

This is what happens all the time. You can stop covering your confusion, Mr Quinlan, and just listen up a bit. Ministers opposite are constantly trying to exercise their muscle to get their way. This government is attempting to ride roughshod over the checks and balances in this small Assembly. It is happening today. At the very time we are debating rights and whether or not you should have scrutiny or extra layers of scrutiny, other ministers in this place are attempting to limit the scrutiny on bills. I think it is worth noting the rights about vigilance and the things that we talked about this morning. Democracy works—not on the feel good, black-letter law but on the hard work of legislators in scrutinising bills, looking at what happens, talking to people to work out the implications and what it might mean to them and talking to and taking advice from officials. When the official gives advice, the question should be asked, “Can I live with that or can’t I? Do I need extra advice on this occasion?” Members of the opposition decided that they needed extra advice and went to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. At the same time this government is trying to ride roughshod over it. This is not how democracy works. This is not how you ensure the rights of people in this place. To the best of our abilities we will stand in the way of people trying to ride roughshod over the full operation of democracy in this place. Democracy and rights are not made by pieces of legislation like this but by the vigilance of every elected member.

MR STEFANIAK (11.30): Firstly, in relation to clauses 35 and 36, I await with interest and perhaps trepidation to see what the Attorney-General is going to do by way of intervention. I think this might just highlight another problem with this bill. In relation to clause 38—considerations of bills by the standing committee of the Assembly—in the scrutiny report on pages 14 through to about 16, the committee comments on this matter. On page 16 it indicates that it does not see its recent approaches as being inconsistent with anything proposed in the consultative committee report or in the explanatory statement, and goes on to give some illustrations.

Quite clearly, anyone who reads the committee’s report will see that we look at human rights issues, international conventions and covenants—the works. Again, that brings me to the question: why do we need this bill? I made the point earlier that New South Wales could recommend a good, strong scrutiny committee, modelled on the Senate, with an independent adviser, which we have paid for, to look at human rights issues—which is exactly what we do. It was good enough for them. That is replicated here with the things we are meant to do in clause 38, but we do them anyway. So why do we need this bill? I think that from tonight even blind Freddy can see that the legislation has many potential problems and holes in it. It is real worry. I bring those points to members’ attention and commend to them the comments made on pages 14 to 16 of the scrutiny report.

Clauses 35 to 38 agreed to.

Clause 39.

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