Page 599 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The courts have enough on their hands at the moment without being asked to interpret Bills of this nature which, clearly, on the advice available to me, require further elaboration and guidance. It may well be that Mr Moore's Bill, in essence, is appropriate. It may well be that Mr Moore's Bill will be supported by the Government. It may well be that this Government will bring forward its own Bill embracing some other aspects. Be that as it may, this is a premature attempt by Mr Moore again to bring forward an issue before we have had a chance to look at the real issues of classification as foreshadowed by, for example, the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Kaine: Before he has had a chance to research it, too.
MR COLLAERY: And, indeed, Mr Speaker, as my leader reminds me, before Mr Moore has had a chance to fully research it. I have the advantage of discussions with a party that he attempted to discuss it with and who informed me that after the meeting with Mr Moore, Mr Moore was asking more questions than he was giving answers.
I ask members not to support this Bill at this stage because it is not in the form or the timescale to accord with the Alliance Government's own implementation plans. I also indicate to the house that there are initiatives afoot by this Government to ensure that the Moore Bill, which only appears to cover half of the issues, covers all the issues.
Although I saw Mr Wood raising his arms in horror, I do foreshadow the questions which this Assembly might wish to resolve in open session or elsewhere, as to whether aspects of the matters that the Leader of the Opposition foreshadows might be appropriate matters for the Social Policy Committee. Before I am jumped on, Mr Speaker, I hasten to add that I am not moving any motion to that effect, and nor is the Government. But I believe we should learn from our experience with fluoride. Some of us came clean on the fluoride issue. It was Mr Moore who remained silent for a whole long period after the issue he pressed through did not meet with the acclaim that he expected.
Mr Speaker, once again, we have the stunt man in the corner coming up from behind the pillar with a proposal. Whilst encouraging debate on this issue, we see a fundamental difference between Mr Stevenson's right as a private member to withdraw debate on an issue that he does not wish to proceed with - it is not our function to take over and press forward Mr Stevenson's debate - and this issue which, with the advantage of law advice, I am asking the house to defer. We have seen, in the second report of the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation, some fairly clear warnings about unintended results of legislation.
I suggest and encourage the house to support an adjournment of Mr Moore's Bill to another time when there is a chance
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .