Page 2908 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 August 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
tabled on 5 June, this was in large part possible because of a major effort by the committee and its senior advisor. I remind Mr Stevenson that there was also time for discussions with Mr Connolly regarding some technical amendments that were thought necessary after the Bill was introduced. Mr Connolly pointed out that the Opposition supported the legislation. Mr Stevenson did not speak to the legislation; so I do not know what his views on it were. My point is that, although the legislation was only before the Assembly for seven days, it was properly considered and debated. We did not have, nor did we need, any more time to devote to the Bill.
Mr Speaker, I could give multiple examples of Bills that have not been before the Assembly for any length of time but which I consider have received appropriate consideration. I will go to the other extreme. We are all familiar with the time that has been made available to the public to comment on the planning legislation. The consultation process is quite lengthy. It will cause the Government and some sections of the community some inconvenience, but our efforts on the planning legislation will influence the shape and quality of our community for some time. The delay is justified.
In the time I still have I would like to comment briefly on a few of Mr Stevenson's points. Mr Stevenson has called attention to the need for affected groups and individuals to be consulted. I do not accept that this will always be appropriate. For example, in relation to taxation measures, the need to protect the revenue has to be taken into account. I believe Mr Stevenson has himself demonstrated that in his inquiries about apparent losses to X-rated franchise revenue after the industry was consulted and had notice of the proposed revenue measures.
His next point concerns the community's need to be able to consult its representatives. I cannot deny this is at the heart of our system of government, but I think it has to be balanced against the community's need for its Government to work effectively. I also agree that alternatives need to be considered but, as I have set out above, often these are not realistic alternatives that can be considered. Much the same can be said about the need for research, media reporting and the consideration of issues by the scrutiny of bills committee.
Finally, I would like to say that I do not accept that this Government, or this Assembly, has anything to be ashamed of in the way it prepares legislation. I do not accept that the community should be criticising its efforts to involve them in the decision making process that culminates in the legislative efforts. No doubt there will be some individual items of legislation that could have been developed, explained to the community and brought before the Assembly in a better way. I assure you that this Government is sufficiently sensitive to its responsibilities to learn from its experiences.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .