Page 5101 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 12 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: A house of lords is what we need - an hereditary upper house.
MR MOORE: A house of lords? I do not believe that that is the solution; but, because there is not a review, it is appropriate for us to take particular care with our Bills. I personally think that we saw the best solution operating with a minority government because, in passing Bills, minority governments can be forced to deal with the issues in the public sphere, instead of - - -
Mr Kaine: To pussyfoot around the issues.
MR MOORE: I hear the Chief Minister interjecting, "To pussyfoot around the issues". The Alliance Government's attitude of not pussyfooting around the issues, to use the Chief Minister's own words, and not doing the consultation, just verifies the need for this discussion of a matter of public importance that Mr Stevenson has raised - and a very good matter of public importance it is.
Mr Stevenson suggested that 30 days would be an appropriate time for all Bills. I think there certainly is a very good argument - and Mr Collaery put it - for some urgent legislation and some legislation that we would not declare urgent, to be done in a hurry, and the Interim Planning Bill was a good example of that. All members had agreed that it ought to go through this week, and still the Government flexed its muscles and used its numbers to push it through. However, the point I am making is that there is legislation that might fit into that category of having to go through in a relatively short time; but it is a very rare example, and it should be a rare example. What we should have is the vast majority of Bills going through in the sort of time that Mr Stevenson is talking about - about 30 days - which gives enough time for the Government to consult with people. Certainly, with the vast majority of Bills that I get, I ask people to look through them for me and to draw attention to any problems as they see them - and I go through quite a long process.
With the Interim Planning Bill it was particularly difficult because of the time and because of the fact that the people who are doing that for me do so without any remuneration and in the public interest, and it is very difficult to demand of them that they do that so quickly. So I think that it is most important that we have this time. Mr Collaery used that argument about averages, and I think he himself was aware when he did so that it held very little water because, of course, if one Bill sits on the table all year, that changes the averages no end. So I think that really did damage to his argument rather than giving an advantage.
Mr Collaery: I will give you a break-up.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .