Page 1045 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Assembly that this Bill is being amended in part because problems were not foreseen when it originally was passed by the Assembly last year. That is why we are debating it today - to fix up a problem that may have been due to haste.
Mr Lamont: A long bow.
MR HUMPHRIES: Not at all. Mr Lamont looks sceptical about that. I remind him and the Assembly that there has been considerable complaint from various organisations involved with dogs since the original Dog Control Bill was passed last year. I recall, and I am sure the Minister does, seeing a large number of letters in the newspaper, letters to members of the Assembly and other comments and complaints from people saying, "We did not have much notice of this coming along. What was going on? We wanted more debate".
The Minister acknowledges seeing three letters. I have had at least that many, and I am sure others in this Assembly have had a number as well. Mr Lamont might think that three constituents are too few to worry about. I do not take that view. In my view, it is quite clear that there are some sections of this community not fully apprised of what is going on here. Irrespective of the level of debate that might have gone before, it is not advisable as a matter of rule to treat this Assembly as the last very perfunctory stage in the process of getting legislation up and running.
Mr Connolly: We would never do that.
MR HUMPHRIES: "We would never do that", says Mr Connolly. I think the record says otherwise. This is not the first time it has happened. I realise that sometimes we get deadlines; sometimes we are told, "The Bill has to be before the Assembly by this stage in order for it to be passed before something happens that causes it to affect the way in which the law operates in the Territory", and I accept that.
The question that has to be asked there is: At what point did the Government realise that amendments of this kind would be necessary? To what extent do we have people back in the department saying, "We can do this and we can do that, and our real deadline is this latest possible date because the Assembly can pass it in a sitting week or a couple of sitting days or a few more than a couple of sitting days"? That is not acceptable. Do not pretend that the departments do not do that, Mr Connolly. I have been a Minister too. I know that they do it, and they have to be told that it is not acceptable. We are entitled to consideration as the legislators, who see the legislation for the first time when it is introduced into the Assembly, as a rule, not only for ourselves but also on behalf of the whole community, which will not have seen legislation before it hits the Assembly either. The period the legislation spends in this place is in a very real sense, for the vast majority of legislation, the only time the community has to consider what the laws of the Territory are going to be. It is very important that we be able to deal with these things properly.
I hope the Minister can persuade us that we should pass this Bill today. He looks very confident that he can, and I am sure he will make a valiant effort to do so. I appreciate that there are good reasons for this Bill to be passed quickly and I look forward to hearing them; but I remind members, and particularly the Minister, that the question of consultation is even more important when we consider Bills in a short time. I expect a Minister to have little time to give us in this Assembly
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .