Page 594 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
issue for them to have advance notice. No doubt that could be put in the media so that people have an opportunity to make whatever arrangements they need to make to enable them to come along to this Assembly.
MR MOORE (10.34): Mr Speaker, I oppose the motion proposed by Mr Stevenson. I accept that he has some quite valid points, but he is talking about the matters that we deal with in the detail stage of the Bill. The appropriate thing to do is to move through the in-principle stage of the Bill, then postpone it so that the concerns that he has expressed can be dealt with in the detail stage. I think it is appropriate to oppose the motion that he has put to change private members' business.
MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (10.35): Mr Speaker, we are opposed to the further postponement of dealing with this Bill. As Mr Moore has quite rightly said, nothing Mr Stevenson has raised in any way relates to the in-principle debate on this Bill. I think it is extremely foolhardy to be putting off at this stage a debate which has been on notice for some time.
We clearly have a report from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee which indicates some difficulties with the Bill. Surely if the Bill is inadequate, if the Bill is wrong, if members do not like it, the procedure quite clearly available to them is to vote against it in principle. I see nothing in what Mr Stevenson said that would persuade me to postpone it. He went further to say that he would like an audience for this debate. Well, Mr Stevenson introduced this Bill some six weeks ago, I believe, and I think he has had more than adequate time to drum up an audience. I think the fact that there is either a very small or unsatisfactory audience in Mr Stevenson's view indicates that this is a minor matter. It is not a matter which is foremost in the minds of the people of Canberra. It is a matter that can readily be dealt with. I say again that if the Bill is inadequate, if the Bill is wrong, members should quite clearly vote against it, and I urge them all to do so.
MR KAINE (Chief Minister) (10.36): Mr Speaker, I am rather intrigued with the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition. As I understand it, according to the daily program, this Bill is a private member's Bill; it is Mr Stevenson's Bill. If Mr Stevenson considers that in his view he wishes to change the time of the debate, for whatever reason, it is his prerogative. Speaking for the Government, I understand that it is convention in most parliaments that the Government accedes to the wishes of the mover of a private member's Bill; it is his Bill. For the Leader of the Opposition to argue that he should have his rights set aside in favour of the rights of the Opposition or of the Government is quite untenable and absurd. For my part, Mr Speaker, if it is Mr Stevenson's wish that his Bill - and I repeat, his Bill - not be proceeded with, that is his prerogative and the Government will accede to that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .