Page 3223 - Week 11 - Thursday, 13 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
should not be fully open to debate. If any members of this Assembly wish to introduce a Bill, they should have that right. One could perhaps talk about the budget. I would probably exclude that.
People elect members of parliament to represent their wishes and, if a member thinks that because it is the wish of the people - or perhaps for some other reason - a Bill should be introduced and debated, then it should be. If the numbers were not here, then it would not be passed; but at least it would have been debated and all members would have had an opportunity to talk on the matter, and the people of Canberra would have had the opportunity to know who thinks what on these different issues.
I think there are only two possibilities in this particular predicament we have, which is a very important one indeed concerning democracy, or whatever it is we have in this town. Either we get another opinion from the most senior legal advise we can get, or we go straight to the Federal Parliament and ask it to change it, otherwise no Bill could be introduced without challenge by members other than by those who control the numbers in the Assembly. Every single Bill affects money. If it did not, interestingly enough, the Alliance or any group that controlled the numbers in the Assembly could move to introduce a money change in some area that then could require any Bill to affect money. I am thinking of a couple of specific instances that were changed not that long ago that could rule out Bills in this Assembly.
We must have a situation where there is full and open debate in the Assembly. There must be a situation where members other than the Alliance have a right and the opportunity to present Bills and debate them on the floor of the house. The Alliance does not need protection in this matter. So, let us agree to get some other legal advice and, if not, let us agree to go to the Federal Government and ask it to amend the Act to allow us to introduce Bills in this part of the house.
MR DUBY (Minister for Finance and Urban Services) (12.18): Mr Speaker, I shall not take up much further time of the Assembly on this matter, but I think this has been a particularly acrimonious debate. People are suggesting that Government members on this side are opposed to the concept of human rights legislation, which of course is not true. To my mind the matter is cut and dried. Standing order 170, as you so rightly pointed out today, Mr Speaker, says quite categorically:
Every bill not prepared according to the standing orders shall be ordered to be withdrawn.
This Bill falls into that category and, no matter how much we want to argue the point, this Bill should be withdrawn. The matter of the literal interpretation of section 65 of the self-government Act has been traversed by many speakers
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .