Page 1151 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, the will of the people is not something that is often surveyed by members of this Assembly. The truth is, I feel, that most people would understand that the 30-day idea would be a minimum that people would agree to. I do not think a survey is necessary, although that is what the result showed. I wish to indicate that in this matter, and on every Bill that comes before this Assembly, unless it is a genuine emergency Bill, I will move to adjourn the matter for a minimum of 30 days from the time the Bill was introduced. I will also vote against each and every Bill unless that time is allowed. I note that earlier Mr Humphries said that - - -
Mr Connolly: What if it is an abolish self-government Bill?
MR STEVENSON: Mr Terry Connolly does raise a good point. He said, "What if it is a Bill to abolish self-government?". I must admit that in that case I would be perfectly prepared to treat it as an emergency Bill and vote the moment the Bill was tabled in this house. I think that is a worthwhile comment by Mr Connolly.
In talking to the Bill earlier, Mr Humphries said "so that power can be exercised responsibly". I do not believe that power is being exercised responsibly in this Assembly if Bills - any single one, let alone many of them, as has been the case over the past two years - are introduced and there is not an absolute minimum of 30 days. I speak of a minimum, not the maximum. It could well be two or three months.
MR KAINE (Chief Minister), by leave: Mr Speaker, I will be very brief. The Government opposes the adjournment motion, and it does so on two grounds. First of all, Mr Stevenson has not established his case. Mr Stevenson well knows that, if you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer. He has often spoken about that in this house in terms of polling. So, when you go out and ask people, "Do you think you should have 30 days to consider legislation?", without further explaining that, of course people say, "Yes, sure; why not?". But if you ask them, "Do you want legislation passed in seven days if it involves significant amounts of revenue which would otherwise come out of your pocket by the way of rates?", you will get a 100 per cent answer saying, "Yes, let us have it in seven days". So, ask the wrong question and you get the wrong answer. You keep telling us that, and I agree with it entirely. I do not think your poll really addressed the question in a way that would gauge public opinion on this matter accurately.
The second point is that Mr Stevenson's question presupposed an exception in the case of urgency. The fact is that we are putting through this amendment because there is an element of urgency. We are talking about the ability of the Government to collect betterment tax at a higher rate than is currently provided under the law. If we do
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .