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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1895 ..

minister that a particular decision is not subject to review by the AAT is a disallowable instrument.

Ms Tucker: So that’s all right then? Why do we bother having an AAT? Let’s get rid of the AAT altogether.

MR CORBELL: I would have thought that the executive and the legislature were a check and balance on the power of the executive. It is a pretty reasonable argument; we have heard it quite often from Ms Tucker. In fact, I hear all the time from Ms Tucker that issues should be subject to disallowance in this place. But when the argument does not suit her and it is disallowable, all of a sudden it is an erosion of rights. But I hear from Ms Tucker all the time that this should be disallowable and that should be disallowable. She wants the call-in power to be disallowable. But when this one is disallowable, no, it is an erosion of rights. It is a contradictory and hypocritical position. This is a disallowable instrument—

Ms Tucker: You’re not convincing anybody in the community. Why don’t you put up a proposal to get rid of the AAT?

MR SPEAKER: Order, Ms Tucker!

MR CORBELL: Ms Tucker also made the implication in this place that in some way—

Ms Tucker: I’ll look forward to that proposal. You might as well.

MR SPEAKER: Order, Ms Tucker! Contain yourself!

MR CORBELL: my position was contradictory to the position I put forward on behalf of the Labor party before the last election. I can assure Ms Tucker that in no way is it.

MR SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr Corbell has the floor.

MR CORBELL: If Ms Tucker had half the wit to look carefully at the policy the Labor party took to the last election, she would also know that the Labor party had articulated that third party appeal rights should be restricted to those people who are immediately and directly affected by a decision. It is there in black and white, Ms Tucker, so just go back and have a look. Go back and have a look at the policy, which is very clear.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Corbell, direct your comments through the chair. Ms Tucker, contain yourself!

MR CORBELL: The Labor party’s policy before the last election made it very clear that third party appeal rights should be available to those who are immediately and directly affected by a decision, and that is a reasonable position. In the debate tonight we heard Ms Tucker’s view that there should be open standing. Open standing is not consistent with the position that appeal rights should be available to those people immediately and directly affected by the decision.

So the position, Ms Tucker, that you put and the position that the government put and the position the government took to the last election, which was endorsed by the people of

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