Page 1815 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 1 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Mr Connolly, I believe that that is probably an allowable statement at this time. Please proceed, Mr Humphries.
Mr Moore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In fact, I raised the matter of duplicity myself - that is quite right - but at the time I pointed out exactly why I was saying it with reference to particular issues, rather than just name-calling willy-nilly. I think that is the difference, and I think there is a major distinction to be made there.
Mr Collaery: Mr Speaker, I can respond very briefly here. He accused me, in opening his speech, of duplicity. I did not take the point of order because very few people in Canberra, as we all know, take this man seriously at all, and I let it go so that he could continue his tirade. There has to be goose-gander, and now Mr Moore does not like it.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, as I said, the issue raised here is: Just what is the Government expected to do with legislation that comes forward from the Opposition - or members on that side of the house - which is flawed, or which contains issues which need to be further canvassed? On the last occasion Mr Collaery went through the arguments concerning problems with that legislation and he said that, in his view, the Bill required a complete rewrite in the sense of being inadequate in a number of ways. He said that his advice was that the Bill contravenes the Privacy Act in respect of the recommended record-keeping practices. It also offers the police immunity from civil litigation, which I assume he was saying is inappropriate, or ought to be more carefully examined.
Mr Berry: I do not think he said that.
MR HUMPHRIES: He did not say that, but I think he was implying that it was clearly not appropriate and at least ought to be examined. It also ascribes powers of custody to authorised persons and it also gives them immunity from civil litigation.
Mr Speaker, there are other issues, Mr Collaery went on to say, which we need to consider in the context of how we would make more modern provisions. For example, he went on to talk about the sex ratio of people in such a place. Would it cater for males, or females, or both, et cetera? I think, Mr Speaker, that the question then becomes: If there are such flaws, who fixes them up? Is it the responsibility of the Government to take a piece of legislation, sometimes poorly or inadequately drafted, and get it fixed up? Is it the role of the Government to say to the Opposition, "These are what we consider to be the flaws. You take them back and fix them up"?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .