Page 484 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: We agree. But being at one on that, I think it was disappointing that a cheap political point was made in debate, suggesting that Labor had neglected or overlooked the New South Wales amendment, that we were ignorant of that and that there was some slip in our Bill in relation to interest being paid to tenants on the bond money. He was well aware of the Opposition's point on that, and I think it ill behoved him to make those cheap political points.
Mr Speaker, we introduced this Bill in a positive spirit. We introduced it in September because we were concerned that, although there had been some assertions by the Government that it would do something about a Rental Bond Board, nothing had happened. When we introduced it, there was vigorous argument from the Government to prevent debate on the Bill. After some months we have a Law Office advice which says that the Bill can go ahead. I had hoped that there would be a positive debate on the Bill and a constructive debate on the Bill and that this would be a good basis for progress. Instead, the Government's nose is out of joint. We have beaten them in producing this legislation and we have produced better legislation. Their nose is out of joint, so they are going to reject it out of hand, and I expect that what will happen is that we will vote on the in-principle stage in this Bill and we will get the flick. I think that reflects poorly on the Government.
I want to respond to some comments the Attorney made about the Law Office and the Legislative Counsel. I took from his remarks there some sort of attempt to create the inference that Labor distrusts the Legislative Counsel, or does not want to deal with the Legislative Counsel, or in some way is impugning the professionalism of the Legislative Counsel's office. Of course, that is not so. He suggested that we were reluctant to deal with the Legislative Counsel's office. That is not so.
The simple answer is, as he said in explaining why it takes a long time to get government legislation out, that there is a great challenge facing the Legislative Counsel's office. They are clearly overworked; they have an enormous backlog of legislation. It is the case, quite properly, that executive government business tends to take priority over private members' business. I also understand that that is particularly the case where there are government drafting instructions on a similar matter.
So, our process of preparing legislation with our resources and introducing it is one that we will continue, and we think it is a positive contribution to debate at this stage. Mr Speaker, the Government seems to be concerned that it would be better for the process of debate in this Assembly if this Bill were to be adjourned, and, as I say, we are not playing politics on this. We are happy to accept that proposal and keep this on the table. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .