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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3575 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

bogged down a bit - or a lot - and the form of it has changed somewhat recently, with less presence of government agencies and more independence in terms of how that group works. So, I am looking forward to seeing what its process will be. As well, I am very interested to know whether it has had an opportunity to look at these Bills that we are being presented with. The committee recommended:

... that the Assembly gives consideration to developing mechanisms to increase its involvement in the making of intergovernmental agreements.

That is partially what Mr Osborne's matter of public importance today is about and what I understand Mr Moore's proposed legislation tomorrow will be about. The Government was not particularly interested in that recommendation. It said, in relation to other intergovernmental agreements, that it believes that these are primarily the responsibility of the Executive, but it acknowledges that this should be revisited in the context of the treaty-making process in Australia by the Council of Australian Governments. So, that has been very slow and is of concern to the Greens.

I feel that, on many of these issues, the horse has bolted. I guess that both major parties need to be thanked for that. If we had more minority governments in this country, with strong voices for social justice and environmental concerns, we probably would have gone into this thing with a little more caution. But we should not have to accept all of this as a fait accompli. We need to see how these legislative proposals impact on the ACT. We also need to look for ways to ensure that, in future, all Assembly members have an opportunity for input to intergovernmental agreements and legislation. As I said, the select committee was concerned about this issue; but we did not get a strong enough response from the Government. So, I am happy to be debating it again. I am glad that Mr Osborne has become interested in the issue, and I am glad to see the Labor Party, even though it does not seem to be quite across the history of it, showing some more concerns. Let us hope that, as a group, we will be able to come up with constructive solutions to deal with the possible costs of moving with competition policy in the way that we have done.

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (5.20): The first thing I want to deal with is the Greens' whingeing about the major parties in relation to this matter. Let us not forget that it was the Greens, among others, who voted for the establishment of a Liberal government and who have had their hands on the levers ever since. Let me draw attention to some of the mischievous statements that have been made in this place in relation to Labor's involvement. I am not opposed to competition per se, and never have been; but what I am opposed to is competition which affects badly those people who are less well off. That is what worries me with any proposed legislation which is developed by the Liberal members opposite.

Mr Moore: It did not worry you when Rosemary was signing up.

MR BERRY: I heard Mr Moore interject, "It did not worry you when Rosemary was signing up". Rosemary Follett and a Labor government did not produce this legislation; the Liberals did. It is Liberal legislation, and you have to be wary of it, Michael - in case you have not noticed that you need to be wary of it. If Mrs Carnell had been

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