Page 1883 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in the ACT in competition with the legal profession, because of the lead-in through training. We would expect a fairly long consultation period this year. If the committee feels that it is inappropriate to proceed with that as a part of its reference, that is fine by the Executive and the Government. As I indicated, we intended no discourtesy to the committee by proceeding with what has been a long published and long made clear Labor Party policy objective.
MR MOORE (10.53): Madam Speaker, as the person who originally moved this reference, it may be worth my making a couple of comments. If both members of this committee - there are only two - do not wish to pursue this issue further, then I would be prepared to back off and allow them to proceed in the way they think best. For that reason, I will be supporting the motion. It does seem to me, however, that there ought to be no difficulty - perhaps I am echoing in some ways what Mr Connolly said - with the Government pursuing an inquiry and an Assembly committee, in effect, taking an overview of that. The reality of the situation is that the Government will not decide whether there will be changes to conveyancing in this Territory. The decision will be made by this Assembly.
Mr Humphries: But they will push the issue. They will bring legislation forward.
MR MOORE: That may well be the case. If the Government did not want to bring the legislation forward, then any member of this Assembly can bring it forward, or for that matter, the chair of the committee, should he so choose.
Mr Connolly: Mr Moore might jump in and bring it in before us.
MR MOORE: That is always a possibility. I know from discussions between staff in Mr Connolly's office and staff in Ms Szuty's office during the break that there was what I would perceive as some misunderstanding about the role and the position of the Government compared with the Assembly. It is quite appropriate that the Government should do an investigation into this area, but the final say rests with this Assembly. Generally, I would have no difficulty, even when the Government is doing an inquiry, about an Assembly standing or select committee having an overview of what is happening in terms of that inquiry and also taking further evidence themselves, should they wish. However, we must be careful that we do not set a precedent that says that when the Government is carrying on an inquiry the Assembly does not look at it at all, or vice versa. That is important, but it is also important to identify just where the decisions are made. Decisions about such things are made in this parliament, and we must not lose sight of that.
I suppose the other difficulty that still lies with this issue is that we have a committee of two people. I mean no disrespect to the committee; my experience of committees in the last four years has been that, basically, when members move onto those committees they remove their party political hats and consider issues as issues. I feel very proud to have been a member of a whole series of committees where that has been the case, and I honour all members for their ability to do that. Nevertheless, I think there is a problem in having just two people on the committee. As I have said on a number of occasions, when I am staffed in such a way that I have the time to participate further in committees, I will be only too delighted to offer my services.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .