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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 8 Hansard (24 October) . . Page.. 1922 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):

Can I also make a comment on the statements by Ms Tucker about some of the dubious countries that have enshrined this competition. New South Wales, the Commonwealth Government, the United States, Europe and the United Kingdom have; even Cuba might have at one stage or another talked about competition as well. I do not know where the dubious nations are that you found in your atlas, Ms Tucker, but certainly the information I have seen tells me that a National Competition Policy Reform Bill is going to be passed by every State and Territory jurisdiction, as well as the Commonwealth - not for some ideological clandestine reason, but because it makes terribly good commonsense. This Government will support it, as I am sure the Opposition has agreed to support it in principle as well, because it does make good commonsense. If the Greens want to disagree with that, be it on their own heads. I notice that they are at least consistent, because that is exactly what their Federal colleagues have done. I commend the Bill to the Assembly, and I hope that commonsense will prevail.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail Stage

Clause 1

Debate (on motion by Mr Berry) adjourned.




Debate resumed from 21 September 1995, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Magistrates Court (Amendment) Bill 1995? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 2 they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 3.

MR CONNOLLY (11.13): The Opposition will be supporting these two Bills, which make some procedural amendments to the legal regime governing the Remand Centre, in order to allow what I guess could be described as commonsense outcomes. The Remand Centre, as a matter of principle, and quite properly, consistent with practice throughout Australia and consistent with practice required of Australia under international civil rights agreements, is designed to house persons who have not been convicted of any crime, that is, persons who are accused of a crime but have not yet been convicted.

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