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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1852 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

through to things of such significance as a mutual recognition Bill which deals with trade between us and New Zealand as well as between the States and Territories, as does this legislation. Mr Speaker, this legislation will work within an overall mutual recognition Act of the Commonwealth. I think it will enhance the wellbeing of the people whom it affects - the people of this Territory, who are most important to us, as well as the people of the States, the other Territories and New Zealand. I think it is an appropriate opportunity to draw Ministers' attention to that fact.

In saying that, I have to say that on many issues Ministers are particularly good at consulting with us; Mr Humphries in particular has, on many issues, written or personally spoken to me. I think it is not difficult. But, when we are talking about legislation, each and every member of this legislature has a responsibility to look at that legislation and determine whether or not they can personally support it. Whether or not it has national recognition or national agreement may well be irrelevant. I think it is important to raise this issue now, because I can see that there may be a very embarrassing situation for an ACT government, and the ACT Assembly, when something is signed and then they are told, "Sorry; we are not going to participate in that". I think it is an avoidable situation, and I think Ministers should take that extra step to make sure that any embarrassment is avoided in that way.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (4.32): I just want to make some comments on some of the issues Mr Moore has raised. As a person who has been to a large number of ministerial council meetings and so on over the last few years, I have, from time to time, considered the issues that Mr Moore has raised. I have to say that I am certainly acutely aware, when I represent the Territory and indicate support or otherwise for particular positions, that I, perhaps more than any other Minister representing a jurisdiction, am less able to assure other ministerial colleagues around the table that I can deliver on an agreement that I indicate Territory support for. There are other jurisdictions, of course, that do not have a majority in both chambers of their parliaments. Occasionally, governments face revolts, even from their own backbenchers. One can never be entirely sure in these matters, in any case.

I think I would simply ask members to understand and appreciate the position that Ministers are in when they go to such meetings. Matters that are subject to these sorts of agreements are almost invariably the subject of very long, very protracted and difficult negotiations between the different jurisdictions concerned. It is rare for decisions to be made after a brief period of consultation. One of those rare exceptions was the gun agreement reached last year. But that was obviously highly exceptional, where we had to consult very quickly because we were taking a very big step in a very short space of time.

Ms Tucker: Competition policy was pretty quick, was it not?

MR HUMPHRIES: Not really, no; competition policy was subject to long discussions. In fact, it began under the former Labor Government. It was actually concluded under the former Labor Government, too, as I recall. Those opposite can tell you what the process was with that.

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