Page 1080 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 23 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
debate. Members of this Legislative Assembly have a responsibility to the electorate to carefully consider issues brought to their attention by their electors, the Government, other Assembly members and interest groups.
It is therefore important, especially for me and for the other Independent member of this Assembly, Michael Moore, to ensure that there is then sufficient time to read the draft legislation, hold meetings with interested parties, if needed, discuss the issue with other MLAs, draft amendments and prepare speeches, ideas and thoughts on the issue for presentation to the Assembly. This, of course, all takes time. Let me reiterate that I feel that this procedure, in the vast majority of cases, should take due time; but I do concede that there will be times when it is essential that a matter be dealt with expeditiously. This in no way contradicts the commitment given by the Michael Moore Independent Group in the lead-up to the election. We felt then, and do now, that most Bills need at least 60 days for proper consideration. However, in the interests of the community, which we are elected to represent, we understand that some matters need to be dealt with quickly.
I agree wholeheartedly with the leader of the Abolish Self Government Coalition in his press statement, released on Friday, that "Public consultation is achieved by delivering it, not by talking about it". The general public have a right to scrutinise what is proposed as legislation. There are exceptions to this general rule, one example of which is the proposed repeal of the termination of pregnancy legislation. In this case the Government's intentions were known shortly after the election and, as the Bill before the Assembly seeks to repeal existing legislation, I do not believe that it is necessary to prolong what is a divisive debate.
The termination of pregnancy legislation has been in the public arena for 14 years and the issue is one that I am familiar with. There is no need to prolong debate on an issue on which the vote is ostensibly a conscience vote. I would put it to members of the Assembly that the Bill dealing with this issue should not be allowed to sit on the table for a greater length of time, allowing the escalation of bitterness and acrimony of public campaigns which many people have found distressing and which would continue for another two months. In this instance the Canberra public are not served by undue delay.
While agreeing that public consultation is achieved by delivering it, not by talking about it, I must query the leader of the Abolish Self Government Coalition's methods of consultation. A survey taken in a shopping centre or over a telephone in response to specific questions may be of some assistance when the sample size is large enough and when the questions are broad-ranging enough to canvass the whole issue; but brief questions with brief answers, of an indeterminate and inconsistent sample size, are of little or no help in gauging public reaction on a matter of importance. I would argue: If the Bureau of Statistics can claim that youth unemployment figures taken in the form of a survey can have a large standard error and are, therefore, at the least, unreliable, how much more so are the innumerable survey results provided by the Abolish Self Government Coalition?
Returning to the substance of this matter of public importance debate, I feel that it is imperative that the Government retain the prerogative to identify a particular Bill as urgent, and to have its reasons for doing so heard. It is then up to the Minister responsible for the Bill in question to justify the swift progress of the Bill through the Assembly. On the matters that the leader of the Abolish Self
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .