Page 672 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
suggestion from the Opposition on its face; it always looks for some sinister motive and doggedly sticks to its guns rather than approaching the matter in a sensible spirit. We, on the other hand, have been prepared to approach this legislation with that sensible bipartisan spirit.
The select committee option has the obvious advantage of its being the normal process that is used in a parliament for legislation of great importance. Let us look at major legislation in Australia that significantly affects the Australian community. The Family Law Act went before a major select committee of the Federal Parliament. The new administrative law package on freedom of information again was looked at by a major select committee of the Parliament. The occupational health and safety legislation - one of the crowning achievements of the Follett Labor Government - again was looked at by a select committee. Mr Berry's amendment proposes adopting that sensible course of having a select committee look at the legislation.
The Government proposal is rather to cobble together two committees that both have significant functions which are not related to review of legislation. The planning committee is supposed to look at planning and infrastructure in the Territory. Its role is looking at physical projects; similarly with the heritage committee. One could question whether the planning committee is a body that is achieving very much. On each occasion that it reports there seems to be a dissenting report from one of the two members who participate. I suspect that if the planning committee were asked to report on whether the sun will rise tomorrow one member would say that it would and one member would say that it would not.
Mr Jensen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Connolly has said that on every report there is a dissenting report showing that the two members cannot agree. That is clearly not true. In fact, the last report included additional comments, not a dissenting report, and I request that Mr Connolly be required to withdraw his incorrect statement.
MR SPEAKER: Please withdraw and clarify that point.
MR CONNOLLY: I withdraw the suggestion that they dissent; I will maintain that they do not agree.
Mr Jensen: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Connolly referred to "every report" that the planning committee has produced. I request that he withdraw that suggestion in relation to every report.
MR CONNOLLY: Can you tell me one on which you are ad idem - one on which there is unanimity?
Mr Jensen: Capital works; fences. He was saying that the two Government members do not agree.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .