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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Tuesday, 25 May 2004) . . Page.. 2164 ..

This is basically the same as my first one, and I will not speak at length to it except to say that, taken to an extreme, the power given by clause 6 (2) in the bill could potentially be used to define any works as GDE related. There is no restriction. My amendment to this clause would at the very least ensure that a majority of members of the Assembly agree that the proposed works are related to the GDE before that work commences. I also just make the comment—to respond to Ms Dundas’s comments—that I want to make it quite clear that in no way am I going to be supporting this bill.

Ms Dundas: I’m not supporting the bill.

MS TUCKER: I know you are not. But I just want to make it very clear this is about damage control, absolutely; trying to bring some kind of transparency into the process—and I endorse what Ms Dundas has said—but we are trying to deal in haste with what I think is a totally disgusting piece of legislation.

MS DUNDAS (12.15): This amendment is to ensure that a declaration that works are part of the GDE does not take effect until the Assembly has a chance to review them. Considering the broad scope of this particular clause of the bill, I think it is a very worthy amendment. It doesn’t address the central problems of this bill, but it does provide some additional scope for oversight; so the Democrats will support this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 9.

MR SPEAKER: I take it from what I heard a few moments ago, Mrs Cross, that you are not going to proceed with Nos 1 and 2.

MRS CROSS: Ms Tucker is going to move the amendments I was originally going to move, Nos 1 and 2. I am moving No 3, though.

MS TUCKER (12.16): I am now moving No 1 on the white page which is about the minister’s absolute discretion. I move amendment No 1 circulated on the white paper in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2176].

This amendment and the related second amendment remove the term “in the Minister’s absolute discretion”. I think we can clearly see here the limits to which this government is prepared to go to ensure it appears to be acting decisively and the precedent it has set to ensure subsequent ACT governments can simply give ministers absolute discretion to ride roughshod over any protections that might be established in any legislation that may exist now or that will come into force in the future. I do not believe that these amendments rectify the problems of the bill, but clearly any limits or implied limits to this approach are to be welcomed.

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