Page 5106 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 12 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
sense at all, even this one, would pay due regard to a committee of that order which made recommendations in relation to the time that was required to give proper scrutiny to Bills which are coming before this place.
It is a fact, though, that there is some difficulty in terms of resources for MLAs in this place to research and draft amendments and, of course, discuss amendments with their constituencies. The Government should keep in mind at all times the requirement to take into account the resources that MLAs have at hand to deal with these matters. I think that if they do not do that they are not doing justice to the legislative process or to the process of government in the Territory. I for one, along with my Labor Party colleagues, will be pressing to ensure that the Government recognises that as a requirement of government in the Territory and that they do pay due regard to the needs of the members of the Legislative Assembly to consult fully with the constituency. If they do not, then, of course, it will be drawn to their attention; but one would expect that in the normal course of events they would consider that in placing Bills before this Assembly.
Aside from the curious occurrence that brings this matter of public importance before us at the hand of Mr Stevenson - particularly curious, given Mr Stevenson's background and commitment to abolishing self-government - I think that overall it is an important issue that the Government needs to consider. Some of the issues, as I have said, are not as important as others. But, in general, I think that those matters which were raised in those seven points that he has put before us are worthwhile for the Government to consider whenever they propose Bills for consideration in this Assembly.
MR CONNOLLY (3.54): The matter of public importance that Mr Stevenson has raised this afternoon is of some concern to members on this side of the chamber. There was discussion in Mr Jensen's remarks about the events of last night. I think it is worth harking back to those events because they do demonstrate the problem of ramming through, to use Mr Duby's phrase, important legislation with inadequate consideration.
It should be borne in mind by all members that after the planning legislation was agreed to in principle the unanimous call from the Government side of the house was to dispense with the detail stage of the debate. Yet later that evening an error in a particular clause of that Bill - an error picked out, as is often the case, by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, due to the very expert assistance that that committee is given by Professor Whalan - had to be corrected and the Government itself had to sponsor an amendment to the legislation. That would not have happened if the original intent of the Government had been given full rein in this Assembly. If the Opposition and Mr Moore had not insisted on going through the detail stage we would have had the embarrassing situation of an amending Bill
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .