Page 659 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We have set a reporting date of 10 September in lieu of the reporting date which has been set by the Government, of 18 April. These pieces of legislation, by any measure, would be regarded as substantial. To expect a committee of this Assembly, in a few weeks, to properly inquire into the legislation and deliver a detailed report - a report that is meant to be conclusive and a report that is meant to be respected - would require significantly more time.
The few weeks that is proposed by the Government, in my view, is totally inadequate. It just does not allow proper consideration of the issue. It does not allow community involvement in the formal processes of this Assembly. If the Government wants to head off those processes, why does it not say so and not just create such tight consideration periods which prevent proper consideration of the matter?
We have decided that the committee should consist of seven members. There is an argument against that on the basis of the economic use of the time of Assembly members. However, it is consistent with the Government's proposal to join together those two committees. It was done more to satisfy any concerns that the Government might have had about excluding members than for anything else. I would be quite happy to entertain any proposition to reduce the number of members, but it was done more as an olive branch approach than for any other reason. As it is an important piece of legislation and important to a lot of members in this Assembly, I see no reason why there should not be so many members.
In any event, because of the Government's intention to involve the two committees in considering the matter, it seems to make sense that the Government should have the option to include those members who it had originally intended would be involved in the matter. Of course, a routine matter is dealt with in terms of a quorum, where the majority of the members would constitute a quorum of the committee. The same applies in relation to point (5), where necessary staff facilities and resources are to be made available.
Under the proposal that has been placed before us by the Government, it seems as though it would be absolutely pointless in terms of providing adequate staff facilities, with such a short reporting time. You cannot expect that a committee would be able to address this issue in any proper way in such a short period of time, irrespective of the adequacy of the staff facilities that were provided. It just could not be done. There are a lot of community members who would want to have input into this. It would be farcical to deny the community the opportunity to take their time in considering this matter because of the importance of this issue in the community. That is why, as I have said before, the Labor Party in opposition has decided on the extended reporting date.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .