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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Tuesday, 25 May 2004) . . Page.. 2148 ..

going to claim that I have had adequate opportunity to seek advice, because I am not able to do that until its report is tabled on these issues, and to get different opinions from community and legal experts on exactly what we are doing in this place.

One of the key issues that keep coming up in looking at interference by executive government with judicial process is the findings in regard to the Kable case. There is a strong argument that passage of this bill would diminish public confidence in the appeal courts, given that they will be perceived to be associated with the change in rules, and the result will be that the law will make it more difficult to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice by the courts.

One of the arguments put in defence of this bill and, indeed, the regulations passed the week before last is that this is essentially a planning issue. The Bachrach case in Queensland is used to justify this position. However, the regulations on 13 May and, more explicitly, this bill are not just about planning. They are in their reach and impact also about nature conservation, heritage, biodiversity and our broader understanding of what the environment means, which I think we have agreed to in this Assembly in terms of all reports that come from the Commissioner for the Environment and definitions within legislation, understanding the environment to include all those things.

This bill was introduced on the 14th and, basically because of outmanoeuvring, was not passed on the same day. Instead, in the midst of the estimates process, we are having this special sitting. This is a rush. As I said, we had the scrutiny of bills committee meeting this morning. I wonder whether anyone here other than members of the committee has had an opportunity to read and digest its report.

The challenges to decisions or lack of decisions in the courts, even for someone who supports the road being built, are a way of checking that the work has been done in the best possible way, that all appropriate factors have been taken into account. Of course, the current challengers themselves do not believe that the road is the best solution for Gungahlin’s transports needs, and I agree with them, but my point is that, as we so often say in relation to complaints mechanisms, that scrutiny ultimately helps the activity under question to be improved.

It is worth reminding the Assembly of a few of the things that this government has promised to the public, promises it is having no real trouble in breaking. As Leader of the Opposition, Mr Stanhope spoke at the Labor leaders breakfast on 14 March 2001 about a code of good government, saying:

Because accountability is a fundamental Labor value, we will restore the Public Accounts Committee and a separate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. These two functions are at the essence of accountable government and they demand the responsibility imposed by independence.

They ensure that the Legislative Assembly is able to provide the appropriate scrutiny of the government of the day.

We will change the timing of debates so that Scrutiny Reports and Ministerial responses are both available before debate begins on particular Bills…

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