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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3224 ..

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 37 taken together and agreed to.

Clause 38.

MS DUNDAS (9.37): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name [see schedule 8 at page 3246].

Mr Speaker, I move this amendment as I have concerns about a provision in this bill that it would be automatically repealed less than two years after it has been enacted. This seems to be a little pre-emptive, as there is no guarantee that there will be any form of replacement legislation before this time. Nor is it clear that the ACT government or the Assembly will no longer require a moratorium after this time.

We have yet to see what the outcome of numerous investigations of gene technology will produce, both here in the territory and across Australia. The amendment that I move would allow extra time for consideration, if that is required, without extending the life of the act into perpetuity. I also note that we have just included provisions to appoint an advisery council for this act, which would also disappear less than two years after it had been set up.

However, rather than simply removing the sunset clause, I have suggested that the minister be empowered to repeal the act after the proposed sunset date. If the minister decides to take this course of action, the Assembly will have the opportunity to disallow the instrument if it does not agree. This amendment maintains the policy intention of having an interim moratorium on GM food crops, as there is no guarantee that the moratorium would extend past the proposed finish date.

However, if it is prudent to retain the moratorium after this time, the act can continue in force until it is no longer required. This amendment retains the current policy position of government but allows an extension of the policy without returning the Assembly to legislate once again. We have seen this before with sunset clauses. The seemingly endless extensions of the gambling machine cap come to mind. Instead of the Assembly having to continually extend the life of this act, which would seem quite possible, I put forward this amendment so that we put the power in the hands of the minister, and that power is a disallowable instrument. I commend this amendment to the Assembly.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (9.39): This is a very sensible amendment from the Democrats. As Ms Dundas points out, if the bill lapses on 17 June 2006, all of the provisions, as well as the council, will disappear. The construction of the amendment is very neat, in that it forces the minister to give written notice of the expiry of the bill, which is a disallowable instrument. Then the Assembly can have the debate to extend or accept the notice. It is a very good amendment from Ms Dundas.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Arts and

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