Page 1075 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 23 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
there are likely to be half-a-dozen or even more amendments tabled by different members. I suggest that that is absolutely no time to consider those amendments genuinely. It happens again and again.
Mr Berry: If you have some policies when you are elected, it will make it easier.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Berry raises a point about having clear policies when one is elected. I will not refer again to the abortion clinics in the ACT. But I will say that most people do not know the policies of most parties. One could not necessarily expect people to fully understand all the ramifications of policies, particularly when they may not have all been printed until immediately before the election. It is not the policy; it is also what the suggested law is. When a Bill is proposed, people have a right then and there to discuss the matter.
It was mentioned earlier that the media have a valuable role to play in this, and indeed they do. Members of the community also should have the opportunity to write letters to the media. The media should have the opportunity and the time to fully discuss both sides of the issue. This is usually not possible in a few short days, or a week or two, to say the least. We have polled hundreds and hundreds of people in Canberra as to how long they think should be allowed from the time a Bill is tabled in the house until its final passage through the Assembly. What we find is that the large majority of people believe that that time should be between 60 days and 90 days. Let us have a look at some of the problems that have been caused in this Assembly because Bills have been rushed through. One would have been the Dog Control Act.
Mr Berry: Let us go back to the fluoride debate when you had the numbers, Dennis.
MR STEVENSON: Only last week a Dog Control (Amendment) Bill was introduced because there were major problems with the Dog Control Act that had been passed in this Assembly last year. It put much too stringent requirements on many dog owners. Indeed, the amending Bill that was tabled last week was valuable. However, it is an example of what happens when there is not sufficient time. Who would disagree that, if there had been more time for the initial Dog Control Bill, those people who found the regulations too stringent would have had time to come along to members, and amendments could have been made then, not last week?
Mr Berry said, "What about the fluoride Bill when you had the numbers?". The truth of the matter is that there was a suggestion by the Canberra Times specifically that the initial fluoride Bill in 1989 had been rushed through the Assembly. It appears that Mr Berry believes what he has read in the paper, but I would suggest a referral to the list of Bills that had passed through this Assembly at that time. Up to that time, 14 Bills had passed through the Assembly. One was passed in one day, one in two days, a couple in five days, some in under a week and some more in under two weeks. If the fluoride Bill had been passed in that time, indeed I would agree with comments about rushing the fluoride Bill. But it was not rushed. Some Bills were not passed until three weeks had elapsed. Interestingly enough, the fluoride Bill was not one of those either. Every one of those Bills, except the fluoride Bill, was passed through this Assembly in three weeks or less. Remarkably, the fluoride Bill, which many people in Canberra have been misled to believe was rushed through, was not rushed through this Assembly. Indeed, its final passage took five weeks. That is a valuable point.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .