Page 4587 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 27 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have had to interpret that Act up until now, and we have interpreted the words as we understood them to be intended. That does not suit the Opposition, so they say now, after 12 months. When it was referred to the then Chief Minister she did not choose to do anything about it, but suddenly now it is very important. It is important, all right. It is also asserted by the Leader of the Opposition that we are not putting target dates on it. That simply is not true. We will ask people to respond in a reasonable time. I am quite sure that the Attorney-General, when he refers this matter for yet another expert legal opinion, will ask for that to be done in a reasonable time. But I think it is a question of what is reasonable.
It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to say that the Commonwealth Attorney-General will respond by 11 December. Has she asked him? And, if she did, why did she not ask him then and there to take the matter under advisement, to be confirmed in writing or something? So she wants two bob each way. She wants to be able to assure us that she has fixed all this - presumably that is what that was all about - and that all that is required is a letter from me and they will respond. I very much doubt that that is so. I do not think that the Commonwealth Attorney-General is sitting there with nothing else to do but to await this request from us seeking some advice as to what the Commonwealth meant when it put those unusual and different words in the self-government Act.
I think that it is unreasonable for the Leader of the Opposition to take the view that we are deliberately slowing this down. We are not. We take the matter very seriously. We will be seeking appropriate responses. We will be seeking responses in a reasonable time. And I do not believe that it is reasonable at all to try to tie somebody down, whether it be the Commonwealth Attorney-General or an eminent legal counsel, to responding on a matter of this kind in five minutes, which is what the Opposition seems to be seeking.
What I am looking for is advice that will resolve the issue - not half-baked advice that will still leave the matter open to debate and further questioning.
MR CONNOLLY (3.27): Mr Speaker, it is very disappointing to the Opposition to hear that this matter is going to proceed with all due deliberation and at a reasonable pace and that in due course and the fullness of time we might get an advice.
Mr Jensen: From a constitutional lawyer that is incredible.
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Jensen does not know what he is talking about, and he will be better educated, if no wiser, by the end of my remarks.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .