Page 1966 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 24 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
introduction, which does not allow for the proper processes and consultation or careful drafting to take place.
Against this background, I would like now to examine the poverty of logic and the inconsistency of argument which underlie the motion. All members will be keenly aware that private members' Bills being drafted by the legislative counsel are treated in confidence. Neither the title of such Bills nor any details regarding their contents are available to the Government until the private member concerned so wishes.
So it is clear, Mr Speaker, that this motion seeks to impose upon the Government a requirement which private members are not asked to meet when their legislation is being prepared. In this regard I remind the Assembly that private members' business can be just as significant, or even more so, in its public impact than the Government's legislation. We need only recall the public consternation that met the legislation to give extensive move-on powers to the police to convince us of this. So with this factor in mind, is the mover of the motion also offering to surrender the rights of confidentiality in relation to private members' Bills?
Mr Humphries: Yes, we will agree to that.
MS FOLLETT: Mr Speaker, I have examined today's motion closely but I cannot see such a proposition contained in it.
I would now like to turn to another type of legislation that comes before this Assembly and I am referring to opposition amendments to government Bills. I can recall very few occasions on which such amendments have been provided in advance to the Government. Indeed, I can actually remember occasions on which members have sought to move amendments without even circulating them in writing on the floor of this Assembly. Such action was quite properly revealed to be in contravention of the standing orders by you, Mr Speaker. Again, it is clear that this motion seeks to set one rule for the Government and another for the other members.
In essence, it asks this Assembly to agree that it is acceptable parliamentary practice to give no warning of opposition amendments to government Bills and provide no information regarding any detail of a private members' Bill. At the same time, the Government must provide the same sort of information in relation to all its legislation months in advance.
I would like now to turn to Mr Humphries' alarming ignorance of practices in relation to legislation programs elsewhere in Australia. First of all, Mr Humphries last week provided me with a draft forward program of government business for the Senate in the Federal Parliament. In a handwritten note on that list, Mr Humphries claimed that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .