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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2555 ..

If the Assembly passes this motion, the government will be directed to not bring into effect the range of subordinate legislation that may be necessary to give effect to legislation to which the Assembly has agreed, regardless of whether there is a need to deal with these matters as soon as possible or whether there are significant implications if they are not dealt with. If it passes the motion, the Assembly’s proposal is that we pass legislation and then simply ignore it, perhaps, for months.

As members are aware, subordinate legislation is needed to ensure that principal legislation operates effectively. The motion would prevent the government from allowing legislation to operate properly, if at all, essentially directing the government not to allow legislation passed by the parliament to take effect. I am not aware of a single precedent for any such prohibition on the operation of laws passed by a parliament—where the parliament passes a law and then the parliament directs the executive not to implement the law. I have never heard of any direction being given to an executive by a parliament not to implement the law passed by the parliament.

Further, while the motion is inappropriate, it also lacks consistency. The motion relates to the legislation passed in the June, July and August period. It would, in fact, be possible for the government to bring into effect regulations under acts already in existence, which may have a substantial, or indeed greater, policy effect then any regulations we may bring into effect as a result of legislation passed in June, July and August. If this is just aimed at June, July and August legislation, why ignore every other act in existence in the ACT that provides a regulation making power? The situation has absolutely no logic and does not seem to serve any purpose at all.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that the motion relates to legislation passed in June, July and August, the conventions that apply to the continuing governance of the territory leading up to an election are established in the caretaker conventions. Members have received the updated caretaker guidelines that will apply in the 2004 caretaker period. The conventions are codified in those guidelines and properly set out the appropriate constraints and processes that apply to governments prior to an election and the reconvening of the legislature.

The principal convention that applies under the guidelines is that the government will ordinarily not make major policy decisions that bind incoming governments. In circumstances where this is not possible the government will consult with the opposition and other members to seek and obtain agreement to the action to be taken. The government is committed to this convention, and it is the approach that most meets the concerns inherent in the motion raised and the approach that is the most sensible and practical for the governance of the territory.

In effect, the motion attempts to amend the Electoral Act provision that sets the caretaker period at 37 days before the date of the election by a motion in the Assembly, not an amendment bill. The caretaker convention, pursuant to the Electoral Act, comes into effect on 12 September. This motion seeks to extend the caretaker convention in relation to regulations, from 12 September to 16 August. The Electoral Act specifies a 37-day caretaker period, and this motion seeks to override the act and kick in a caretaker convention period from 16 August.

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