Page 2298 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I do again have to say that I am exceptionally surprised that the Liberal Party have not engaged at all in this process, and to hear today what we have heard from the members is exceptionally disappointing, because I think we do try to engage with all parties. We have engaged with the Liberal Party on other pieces of legislation and I guess it is very hard to understand why with this piece of legislation, which is something I would have thought they would have supported, they have only criticised it.
The thing is that they have not engaged in the process at all, have not put forward any amendments and have not engaged in its development. So to then come forward and criticise it is so disingenuous it is just beyond belief, really.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (4.21): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 2367].
I did speak to the amendments previously but I do think it is important to pick up on one thing I did not have a chance to mention before. On a couple of occasions this afternoon Mrs Dunne talked about some previous processes she was involved in around getting a better schedule or better process around consultation on these matters and that she felt that many of the things that have been included in these amendments were good; they were part of that. But it seems to me that what she comes down to is to keep saying that this is not the right legislation because there is no review mechanism.
I should have gone to it before but I will go to it now. The reason is that in an earlier draft, I guess, we did have in an ACAT review and it was to be included. The reason that we have taken that out—
Mrs Dunne: Andrew twisted your arm.
Mr Doszpot: That is one we did not see. Somehow we did not get a copy of that one.
MS HUNTER: Maybe I could talk now? The reason that we decided to remove it was based on legal advice and it was very consistent with the Administrative Review Council guidelines on merits reviews. I think it just shows a lack of understanding and of ignorance of what ACAT is there for and how it relates to this. Certainly, we had thought that might be the best way to go. But, after seeking that advice and looking further into the issue, it was not.
What you need to understand, quite clearly, is that, because we have put a series of processes into these amendments with “must”, it means that, if the minister breaches
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video