Page 594 - Week 02 - Thursday, 9 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Nonetheless, a bill like this is probably desirable to have on the ACT statute books, and as such, with a few reservations, I will be supporting it. The scrutiny of bills report raised serious concerns regarding the open–ended nature of the chief executive’s discretion under the bill. My office echoed and expanded on those concerns and I welcome the government’s positive responses to our suggestions. However, merely substituting the minister for the chief executive does not address the open–ended nature of the power. Despite the Treasurer’s reassurances, the explanatory statement does not provide adequate guidance as to the purposes of this bill. Given that these powers may well be exercised by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and scrutinised by the Federal Court on appeal, some guidance as to what consideration should guide their decisions would be appropriate.
I also echo the concerns of the scrutiny report regarding clause 38 (3). I have received a satisfactory explanation for the necessity of incorporating international standards into the regulations. However, I remain concerned that regulations should be made publicly available as soon as possible after taking effect, and preferably before they take effect. I urge the government to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to ensure that incorporated documents are placed on a publicly available database as soon as possible after taking effect, and preferably before they take effect, in draft form, when that is possible.
Clause 10 (4) is one example of where the bill attempts to codify procedural fairness by specifying time limits on the exercise of various powers. In one regard this is admirable in ensuring that the rights of the licence applicant are protected by statute. However, procedural fairness is an unstated requirement of all government decision making, and codification of such rights can sometimes be counterproductive—for example, where it fails to allow for those occasions where the gravity or urgency of the situation means that natural justice can be achieved by a phone call or a fax.
Of course, if the applicant consents to a proposed condition, there is no issue, and if there is an issue of public safety the minister can immediately suspend the licence. However, there may be situations when neither of these considerations apply but it is in the public interest that a condition apply immediately. While this is a possible but unlikely scenario in the context of this bill, I raise this point largely as an issue for consideration when drafting future laws.
Motor racing by its very nature involves the emission of various toxic compounds. Presumably some of the conditions and incorporated documents will contain environmental standards that must be adhered to. I do not think we can rely on international motor sport bodies to set appropriate health and environmental standards for Canberra residents and visitors. I personally would like to know what is in those clouds of smoke breathed in by the crowds who get excited watching cars spinning around in circles and burning tyres. I cannot imagine that the smoke does not contain a fair proportion of carcinogenic and other pathogenic compounds, and I await with interest the government’s own environmental impact research to either verify or dispel my concerns.
Clause 13 provides a penalty of 20 penalty points for failure to comply with licence conditions. This is a manifestly unrealistic deterrent considering the damage to the public
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .