Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 14 Hansard (Tuesday, 7 December 2010) . . Page.. 5819 ..

Ayes 10

Noes 5

Mr Barr

Ms Hunter

Mr Doszpot

Mr Smyth

Ms Bresnan

Ms Le Couteur

Mrs Dunne

Ms Burch

Ms Porter

Mr Hanson

Mr Corbell

Mr Rattenbury

Mr Seselja

Mr Hargreaves

Mr Stanhope

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail stage

Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (12.05): Pursuant to standing order 182A(b), I seek leave to move amendments to this bill which are minor and technical in nature.

Leave granted.

MR CORBELL: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name and table a supplementary explanatory statement to the government amendments [see schedule 1 at page 5887].

These amendments are minor and technical in nature and clarify the commencement of the transition period and the commencement of the ban period as 1 July and 1 November 2011 respectively.

MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (12.06): I think that the need to bring this amendment forward again shows some of the sloppiness with which this bill has been handled to date. The government long ago made its decision as to what it wanted to do. It went through a sham community consultation. It did not prepare a regulatory impact statement before it was considered by cabinet, and now, because it is rushing it through again, it has been forced to come and fix what is a technical but an important provision. I think that again it shows that the government has not been fair dinkum in this process.

Let us look at what the government are seeking to do. They refused to release a regulatory impact statement. It had not been done when the cabinet considered this. But they now say that this regulatory impact statement is cabinet-in-confidence. Yet it did not go to cabinet when they actually considered the bill. When did it go to cabinet is an interesting question. The sloppiness, which is personified in a number of ways but also by the bringing forward of this amendment today, goes to the way this government have handled it and the disregard they have had for the impact on business—just complete sloppiness.

We heard in the debate, “It does not matter that you’re imposing this regulatory burden because it’s only a maximum penalty.” They are saying that it is only a

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video