Page 672 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 5 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Follett: No, I have not.
MR HUMPHRIES: Well, Mr Wood said that.
Mr Wood: I said that.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Wood said that. The Chief Minister did say that we are somehow stifling debate by referring this matter to a select committee at this stage. Of course, it is true that at this point we will not debate in the time allotted to private members' business this morning this particular Bill. That is very true. There are plenty of other matters on this agenda paper, nonetheless, for us to debate this morning.
We are not in any way stifling the debate on this issue because we are referring it to a select committee which will fully debate the issues, then come back to this Assembly which will then have a full and proper debate in light of the information, elucidated by the select committee's deliberations, and then make a decision on the fate of this Bill. How that can be referred to as stifling debate, I simply do not know.
When the Government supported the establishment of a select committee on the amalgamation of the tertiary institutions in the ACT, was it stifling debate? When it supported the establishment of a casino select committee, was it stifling debate? When it supported the select committee on occupational health and safety, was that a measure designed to stifle debate? Of course it was not. Those moves were all supported by the Government.
In every case, a select committee has been established in this place because it wanted to make sure debate was informed; it wanted to make sure the debate was held in the proper context. That is why we support today this motion to refer this matter to a select committee on this subject - so that we can get informed debate.
It has been suggested that this is too complex a matter to have it considered by a committee within three weeks. What tripe! What rubbish! This is a three-paragraph Bill. It is a one-page Bill. Contrast this Bill with the Nature Conservation (Amendment) Bill which was passed by this Assembly only last week. It was half an inch thick, containing provisions that were infinitely more punitive than anything that appears in the Bill of my colleague Mr Stefaniak.
That nature conservation Bill contained penalties of five years imprisonment or a $10,000 fine. How can that be said not to be punitive when this Bill, which contains considerably smaller penalties for failing to obey lawful police directions, is described as being in some way excessive? Where is the Government's sense of priorities on these matters? I am sorry, but I cannot accept for one moment that the Government is being consistent on these questions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .