Page 1812 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 1 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The concept of dealing with intoxicated persons in a much more caring way, as Mr Berry has suggested, is something that the community and Mr Collaery should be pleased about, not something that he should find in any way threatening. It does appear that that has been his approach. It is ironic, considering that just recently in the Canberra Times an article was published about Rally policy and going for a committee-style form of government. It is ironic that, where there is an opportunity to work in a bipartisan way, the only way that Mr Collaery seems to be able to work in a bipartisan way is to accept that bipartisanship means that the Government suggests something and everybody else supports it. In this case, we have a situation where Mr Berry has presented the Bill and it ought to have had much more care and consideration by the Government, or Mr Collaery should have indicated - as he has now indicated in his speech, but he should have indicated much earlier - that perhaps the appropriate procedure would have been for this to go to the appropriate committee - in this case, most likely, I would presume, the Social Policy Committee.
Let me warn you that there is some danger, and let me warn you about that danger, because things can get buried. One example of that is that we are in the process of having variations drawn up on school sites, and yet at the same time one of our committees is considering the schools location Bill, which is a methodology on just how to deal with the closure of schools and also the disposal of school land. The very issue that is before this Government with that variation is also a matter that is before a committee, and I believe that that is an entirely inappropriate situation. Yet, did we hear from the chairman of that committee on this issue and on my motion? Certainly not. A similar situation here with the Intoxicated Persons Bill would therefore be a cause for concern. What the Government pays lip service to - community consultation, bipartisanship, support of the committee system - often appears to be just that - lip service. There are notable exceptions, of course. However, this is a case where it would have been quite appropriate for the Government to support Mr Berry's Bill and to suggest some amendments.
Mr Collaery's speech indicates the need for some amendments, but not so wide and so far as would have been of any great concern. He has also drawn attention to the fact that his Law Office suggests that this is a direct take from the New South Wales legislation that has been implemented and has been accepted by the Council for Civil Liberties there, in spite of the fact that it has some compromises, because anybody who looks at civil liberties recognises the importance of balancing the individual's civil liberties against the fact that we live in a society. The very fact that we live in a society and choose to live in a society is, in effect, a restriction on some forms of civil liberty.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .