Page 1884 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (10.57), in reply: Madam Speaker, I thank members for their support of the motion. I understand that it will pass on that basis. I want to respond to a couple of things that have been said. I do not think the Attorney understands what it is that I am alleging is a convention in this place. I certainly do not begrudge the Government embarking on either discussion papers or research or policy development or anything of that kind. That is entirely appropriate, and in fact should go on contemporaneously with other things happening in the Assembly. The Government should not be left behind in that process, I agree.
However, for the debate to continue at a political level when it is going on in a committee is not precedented. For example, during the time this Assembly had a standing committee looking at fluoride it did not conduct debates about fluoride on the floor of the Assembly or out in the community, for the most part. It kept it within the committee.
Mr Berry: Everybody else did.
MR HUMPHRIES: Maybe others did, but the Assembly's processes were to leave it to the committee to recommend to the Assembly, and we respected that. I think it would be inappropriate if in future we had two different levels of political activity going on in a public way. What would have happened if there had been public hearings into the Attorney's inquiry into conveyancing at the same time as the committee of the Assembly was conducting public inquiries into the matter? It would have been a shambles. It would have been a duplication of resources, and, for a small Territory, that is not particularly desirable. It would also have been confusing to the electorate to see that kind of thing going on.
I hope that we do not get into the business of having political discussion and debate about those things at the same time. To emphasise that point, I indicate that while this was happening the Attorney actually issued a release under his name - not under the department's name, not under the name of the head of the department, but under his name - restating Labor Party policy.
Mr Connolly: The department works to me.
MR HUMPHRIES: I know that it does, but it also issues things without the Minister actually putting out a press release. If he had done so in this case, even under his department's name rather than his own name, I would have been quite happy; but we cannot have this happening at two different levels. It has not happened before. If you can point out some occasion where it has happened before, I will retract these statements; but I cannot recall that it has happened before and I hope that it does not happen again.
In terms of the operation of the committee, I have to say, to my surprise perhaps, that Mr Lamont and I have operated with complete agreement on all matters that have come before the committee so far. I sincerely hope that that remains the case. I am sure that it will assist the community in due course to have a third member. Whether it is Mr Moore or maybe Mr Stevenson or somebody else I do not much mind; but I think that would be healthy and helpful. In the meantime, we have a very important and very large task ahead of us in considering the cost of justice, and I hope to be able to proceed with the meat of that inquiry in the very near future.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .