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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1903 ..

minimalist approach. There really is no further winding back of proposals in relation to this particular issue that could be achieved. To talk about it as bad law is just so trite and effectively so ignorant of exactly what it is that we are seeking to achieve—so amazingly trite. It would have achieved the purpose, it would have achieved it in a minimalist way with the least disruption. I have to say: we tried our best.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for Arts and Heritage) (11.18): I rise to speak on this amendment, and in doing so would correct Mr Smyth who said earlier that I thought that Mrs Dunne’s bill was a good bill. I never said any such thing.

Mr Smyth: You said it across the chamber.

MR WOOD: No, Mr Smyth, I certainly not. The lack of logic from Ms Dundas and some others just surprises me. They would not pass these modest things, which do take away some of the aspects of appeals to the AAT, yes, but they looked with approval at Mrs Dunne’s bill that takes away all rights. It takes away all the rights. So Ms Dundas at another time can explain that twist of logic that misses me altogether. It just does not sort of factor with me.

MRS DUNNE (11.19): I think the reasons why this amendment cannot be supported have already been said, but I thought the knock-down, drag-out argument for why we should support it was the Chief Minister’s “this is a minimalist approach”. Remember the minimalist republic? Yes, what happened to it? Again, when you compare things back to what we absolutely die in a ditch over, we usually get it wrong.

One of the things that have not been said here tonight and need to be reinforced is that members of the government are here saying that, if we passed either of these amendments tonight, we could go out tomorrow and start the GDE. Wrong, Mr Speaker, wrong. Because there is something else out there holding up the GDE. It is called an injunction.

Mr Wood: No, that’s now solved.

MRS DUNNE: It is called an injunction, Mr Wood, and that injunction has not been lifted and there is no prospect of that injunction being lifted this week. There is no guarantee that when the lawyers for the territory turn up to Justice Crispin and say, “We’ve done what you wanted,” Justice Crispin will be satisfied. There is no guarantee.

So all the huffing and blowing and all this sort of thing that we are holding up the GDE is nothing more than hot air, more hot air, from Mr Stanhope and Mr Corbell because, Mr Speaker, as I have said till I am just sick to death of it, they messed it up; they got it wrong; they did not do their homework; they did not think about what might go wrong. As in everything, they never think about what might go wrong; they just think, “We’re from the government; we’re blessed; we’re the Labor Party; we should get our way; the fires will stop; the road will be built because we say so.”

Justice Crispin rained on their parade. Justice Crispin has not yet lifted his injunction, and there is no guarantee yet. I have done, and this opposition did, what we could to

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