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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2018 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 22 February 2018) . . Page.. 582 ..

This issue is clearly of major concern to every member of the Assembly, as it should be. From that point of view I think it is worthy of a significant committee inquiry. But I would like to see that inquiry done at a better time and be a broader inquiry rather than focusing on only one important part of a larger jigsaw.

MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Minister for Planning and Land Management and Minister for Urban Renewal) (10.46): I thank members for their input on this. We will not be supporting Mr Coe’s motion as it stands; we will be supporting Ms Le Couteur’s amendment. It sets out a positive path and gives us a better chance of scrutiny with the process outlined in the amendment.

One of the reasons I do not support Mr Coe’s original motion is his claims of secrecy. They are spurious claims. There is no evidence to support them. If you look at the work the citizens jury has done, it has been very open. I respect the work they have done, and I look forward to the inquiry having a look at that work as well. It is interesting that we have received about 100 pieces of feedback in the jury. There were 725 survey responses and 328 people had their say on these priorities. All of that feedback was given to the jury and helped inform their inform deliberations.

It is important also to understand that 285,000 motor vehicles are registered in the ACT each year, and CTP at the moment does not cover everyone injured in a motor vehicle accident. I am really looking forward to this inquiry and the response later on.

MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (10.47): I was intrigued by Mr Coe’s line of argument about the lack of scrutiny on the preparation of this bill. He basically asked how we can consider a bill when we do not know about the process. I think that was the line of argument; if I have paraphrased incorrectly I am sure Mr Coe will point that out. The answer to that is that we do it every time a bill comes into this place. Most bills are worked up by a public service agency. They go through a cabinet process and then they appear here, and that is when the scrutiny starts most times. Sometimes there is an exposure draft and often stakeholders are involved, but largely that is how it works.

This process is far more open than any other process that normally takes place, and this is because the government is trying to do something different. This is a far more participatory process where the government has invited the community to be involved in the design of the very policy that underlies the bill. I do not think that that line of argument stacks up. I think Ms Le Couteur’s amendment is particularly valuable because we are seeing a number of deliberative democracy processes being run at the same time in different forms. I think this is a far better way to actually look at it rather than pick on this one, which we know is hotly contested.

There has clearly been in some quarters an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the citizens jury. Let this inquiry not be seen as part of that process. Instead, let us have an inquiry that genuinely looks at how the deliberative democracy processes have turned out. Ms Le Couteur in her amendment has identified a number of them that are taking place. I think it would be worthwhile in six, eight, nine months time—certainly

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