Page 1642 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Much has been said about whether the people phoning up programs were four to one against or ten to one for, or whatever. Once upon a time I used to think petitions were the best way to go about presenting to members of parliament the concerns of people within an electorate. Some time ago I changed my view on that. It has been proven by what has been presented to the parliament in petition form. You can get 10,000 people relatively easily - - -
Mr Berry: What is the relevance of this?
MR STEVENSON: It is very relevant. It is relatively easy to get 10,000 people to say that they think circuses should be banned and another 10,000 to say that they should not be. However, that never gives you a percentage of the community. When anybody contacts me over any issue and says, "We are going to get petitions", I say, "Well, that is fine. However, I would suggest that you survey 1,000 people. Make sure that the questions are relevant. Ask people on both sides. Then you can get a percentage. It might be fifty-fifty or 85 per cent one way or the other". I think that gives us the will of the people.
Granted, there are correct ways of running surveys and incorrect ways. They should be done correctly. It is terrible to suggest that you have done a survey and it shows one thing, when it has been a crook survey - particularly when you know it. Most people in the community agree - our survey result was 80 per cent to 12 per cent - that members should reflect the will of the people. I can understand why some people do not think that should be the case on various issues; nevertheless I certainly do, and most people in the community do.
There is another very important point that directly relates to putting this Bill to a committee. It is the responsibility that we have to enact sound legislation. I have raised the point about the horseracing industry. It was suggested that there was only one person in the horseracing industry who was concerned about it, Mr Jim Colquhoun.
Mr Moore: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Under standing order 62, irrelevant or tedious repetition applies not only to members' own arguments but also to arguments put by other members. We really have heard the Colquhoun horseracing argument some 10 or 15 times in this house.
MR STEVENSON: I was just about to mention that it was not only Mr Colquhoun but also Mark Owens, the executive director. That is why I make the point. If I said that it was Mark Owens, someone would say, "Yes, we said that it was only one".
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson, I would still like you to keep in mind the requirements of standing order 62, please.
MR STEVENSON: I truly think the points I make are principles and that they are totally and absolutely relevant - far more than some of the things that I or other people might say at different times. I did not just say "other people". There are principles involved with this legislation. We should not force legislation through. We truly should not force legislation through when there are clear flaws. No-one can logically tell me, when the racing industry acknowledges that some pain is caused in racing and when this legislation makes that an offence - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .