 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Sandra Kanck Deputy Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Sandra Kanck Deputy Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
HINDMARSH ISLAND BRIDGE BILL
Adjourned debate on second reading.
In committee.
Clauses 1 to 3 passed.
Clause 4.
The CHAIRMAN: I point out that clause 4, being a money clause, is in erased type. Standing order 298 provides that no question shall be put in committee upon any such clause. The message transmitting the bill to the House of Assembly is required to indicate that this clause is deemed necessary to the bill.
Clauses 5 to 10 passed.
Schedule.
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I rise to indicate that the Democrats oppose the inclusion of the schedule in the bill. I raised this matter during my second reading speech. I believe it to be inappropriate that the schedule be included. I refer to a letter in the Victor Harbor Times , which I came across recently. It is dated 2 September 1999 and written by Vic F. Mills of Hindmarsh Island. The letter states:
As a signatory to the tripartite deed signed on 22 March 1993 as the then Mayor of the District Council of Port Elliot and Goolwa, I am absolutely appalled that the government now wants to change terms and conditions within that document which was prepared in conjunction with their own Crown Solicitor and recognised by all three parties as a legal and binding document, and as section 27 states, `modification'-`This deed shall not be amended or varied other than by written instrument expressed both to be a deed and to be supplemental to or in substitution for the whole or a part of this deed. Further, any such instrument shall be signed by each party or by a person duly authorised to execute such an instrument on behalf of a party.'
Yet this government seeks to put to parliament alterations without having any consultations with the council. As those alterations will have a detrimental effect on ratepayers, I find those actions absolutely offensive and immoral.
As the Council has not agreed to any variations in this deed and Binalong Pty Limited is in liquidation, I think it is entirely inappropriate to give status to a deed such as this by including it in this bill as the schedule.
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I refute the views expressed by the Hon. Sandra Kanck. The tripartite deed is an essential part of the bill. If you do not have the tripartite deed attached for interpretation purposes, it is a bit more difficult to make the whole thing hang together. In any event, the Hon. Sandra Kanck has read a letter that does not seem to have come to grips with the fact that there was a point at which there was some disagreement with the Alexandrina council, the successors to the District Council of Port Elliot and Goolwa.
Subsequently, the issues raised by the Alexandrina council were adequately addressed and now, as far as I am aware, the deed is supported by the council. So far as Binalong is concerned, it is in liquidation but, notwithstanding that, the deed is still a binding document. That has been the document upon which a lot of legal advice has been given over a long time about the government's liability, in particular. I do not accept the arguments put by the Hon. Sandra Kanck, because I do not believe they are valid.
The committee divided on the schedule:
AYES (16)
Cameron, T. G. Crothers, T.
Davis, L. H. Dawkins, J. S. L.
Griffin, K. T. (teller) Holloway, P.
Laidlaw, D. V. Lawson, R. D.
Lucas, R. I. Pickles, C. A.
Redford, A. J. Roberts, T. G.
Schaefer, C. V. Stefani, J. F.
Weatherill, G. Zollo, C.
NOES (3)
Elliott, M. J. Gilfillan, I.
Kanck, S. M. (teller)
Majority of 13 for the Ayes.
Schedule thus passed.
Title passed.
Bill read a third time and passed.
See Sandra Kanck's earlier second reading speech on this Bill, and the Government's reply to questions raised: 16 November 1999
