Page 1967 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 24 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Bills listed were not introduced until after the paper was published, and that is simply not correct.
Mr Humphries: It is in some cases.
MS FOLLETT: Twenty-seven of the 36 Bills listed on that paper had already been introduced into either the House of Representatives or the Senate by the day on which the paper was published.
Mr Humphries: But nine had not.
MS FOLLETT: Leaving that aside, a far more relevant Commonwealth precedent is the practice adopted by the House of Representatives.
Mr Humphries: Why is it more relevant?
MS FOLLETT: It is the chamber from which many of our practices are adapted, Mr Humphries.
Mr Humphries: The Government does not have a majority in the Senate. It does in the House of Representatives.
MS FOLLETT: That is why it is more relevant. No forward program of proposed legislation is provided in that house. In relation to practices in State parliaments, I am advised that in Victoria, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Queensland advance written notice of the government's legislation program is not provided. Yet the Leader of the Opposition, obviously on pretty poor advice, has claimed in a letter to me that "No other parliament in Australia faces the dilemma of not having a long-term legislation program to work from". Again, not only is the motion deficient in logic; it is based upon patently incorrect information about practices elsewhere in Australia.
Finally I would like to examine the logic underlying the argument that the provision of a long-term legislation program would provide a basis on which the opposition could consult with the community. Mr Speaker, I find it difficult to believe that what is really being claimed is that the title of a Bill alone would provide sufficient information on which to discuss issues with constituents. I find such a notion very strange. Surely one could conduct a meaningful consultation only when the contents of a Bill are known.
Perhaps this suggestion has its genesis in the comments of Mr Humphries, that this Government has not allowed the Assembly sufficient time to consider Bills before they are debated. I reject that suggestion. Where it has been clear that the Assembly has important concerns about a Bill, debate has been deferred for quite some time to allow consultation and negotiations to take place.
For example, Mr Speaker, the Occupational Health and Safety Bill and the Legislative Assembly (Members' Staff) Bill
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .