Page 3519 - Week 13 - Thursday, 26 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The ACT Government, like those of the States, is powerless under the Commonwealth legislation. The Act does not, however, limit the Commonwealth's rights. We have the bizarre situation where the Commonwealth, through the NCPA, can impose standards on the Optus project if any of its preferred sites are on Commonwealth land, but prevents us, the Territory Government, from imposing our high planning standards. This is a concern, but we are hogtied. Let me stress, however, that our fears have not been borne out in the case of Optus. My department has been in consultation with them and there has been a high degree of cooperation. For example, Optus has responded to concerns about the location of some of the base transceiver stations by accepting alternative sites. We have achieved the best outcome, given the considerable constraints imposed on us by the Commonwealth legislation, and I welcome Optus to the ACT. Madam Speaker, I table a list of the sites in the ACT where those base transceiver stations will be located.
Crime - Sentences and Bail
MR HUMPHRIES: My question is to Mr Connolly, the Attorney-General. I refer the Minister to a newspaper report of a discussion paper issued by the New South Wales Labor Opposition last weekend. In it the Labor Party of New South Wales calls for minimum gaol terms for rapists and a tightening of circumstances in which bail is granted to repeat offenders. Given that the ACT Labor Government time and again has rejected these initiatives when they have emerged from the mouth of the ACT Opposition, can the Minister tell us who is in error - Labor in New South Wales or Labor in the ACT?
MR CONNOLLY: Madam Speaker, the Liberals in the ACT are in error because they have simply not read the New South Wales Labor Party discussion paper. I assume that they have not read it, because Mr Humphries, being an honourable man, if he had read it, would not so misrepresent it.
Mr Humphries: Come on; you know what it says.
MR CONNOLLY: I obtained a copy, not the newspaper report. While we all hold our media friends in high repute, sometimes, Mr Humphries, you cannot believe what you read in the paper. I refer to the copy of the discussion paper which I obtained. I will make sure that I get a copy from my office and table it this afternoon for the information of members. The Liberal Opposition could do with reading New South Wales Labor Party position papers, as they could do with reading our position papers generally. You can learn a lot from the Labor Party.
Mr Carr said in that paper that they would consider the possibility of mandatory sentences. When you read further, and, indeed, when you read from the newspaper reports, they were particularly concerned, Madam Speaker, with a situation which appears to have developed in New South Wales where a number of people who are second time offenders are not getting custodial sentences. I am not aware of that being a particular problem in the ACT. I am aware of a couple of cases which have occurred recently where non-custodial sentences were imposed.
Mr Humphries: They do not get first sentences in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .