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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1902 ..

legislation, I question whether or not it is actually within the scope of the bill and whether it also deals with sections that are not dealt with in the main bill. So again, I raise questions about whether or not it is actually within the scope of the bill that we are debating.

MR SPEAKER: Having examined the matter, I take the view that it is within the scope of the bill. It is open to the house as to how it deals with the matter in the end anyway, but, after discussions with the clerk, I form the view that it is within the scope of the bill and I am prepared to allow it.

MS DUNDAS: Then to discuss this amendment: This amendment is a continuation of the government working to restrict citizens’ rights. The championing of human rights that this government proposes is being continually stripped away by the amendments they are seeking to move to legislation before the Human Rights Bill is enabled.

I reject the Chief Minister’s threat that we have got either this piece of bad law or another piece of bad law tomorrow. We cannot accept this as an amendment to this bill, because it is just purely and simply bad law that restricts citizens’ rights. We will look at every amendment and every piece of legislation that comes to this Assembly separately, and you cannot make the threat that it is either this bad law or another bad law. We will consider each separately, and that is how we will make those decisions.

I understand that the government itself is preparing its own enabling legislation, and we will consider that. That is what needs to be done. It does not need this kind of slap-it-on answer that restricts the rights of citizens of the ACT, and that is why again I say, specifically outside the scope of whether or not you support the Gungahlin Drive extension, “Do you support bad law coming into play to justify that?” I do not.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (11.15): I must say I am frustrated, but I see the will of the Assembly. The will of the Assembly is to obstruct the construction of the Gungahlin Drive extension; there is absolutely no commitment to seeing it proceed. And so be it.

As I indicated, the government will look closely at the Projects of Territorial Significance Bill. I have received some preliminary advice which points out some rather major and drastic issues with it, some very significant problems, but it may be that we can iron them out, deal with them, exclude the most draconian of them and come up with a workable piece of legislation. It probably cannot be done by tomorrow.

I think it does mean that the Gungahlin Drive extension construction is put off by—what?—another six weeks or thereabouts, another $400,000 or $500,000, another period of very significant delay for the people of Gungahlin. I must say we did what we could. We will have a look, but I would say, at this stage, that, having regard to the significant issues with the bill that the opposition tabled today, it is probably not in an order that we can grasp immediately. But we will have a look and see how much damage there is to be undone and whether or not we can proceed.

But I must say: I do regret the fact that there is no support within the Assembly for the construction of the Gungahlin Drive extension. I regret that there is no support within the Assembly for the minimalist approach reflected on the sand coloured sheet. It is the

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