Page 2406 - Week 09 - Thursday, 17 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are other Bills, of course, that do not require that sort of approach. I notice among the Chief Minister's first priority Bills amendments to the Gaming Machine Act, the Payroll Tax Act and so forth. These are obviously part of the whole machinery of money Bills and do not require huge amounts of time for community comment. However, it is appropriate that they have some exposure time, where possible. That is not to say that I take the same line as Mr Stevenson, who stands up here on many occasions and says that we need 60 days, so that he can poll people to find out what the majority will of the people is. The rest of us have policies to go back to and assess so that we can determine whether or not a Bill fits in with the general principles under which we operate and the specific policies upon which we were elected.
There are times when, as in the case of the Adoption Bill, a large amount of time can be given so that people can have the opportunity to express their opinion. In a large proportion of the cases, however, our positions are fairly well established and we can therefore deal with legislation relatively quickly. I think there still needs to be appropriate time for people in the community to comment and to draw our attention to a particular aspect or a particular ramification of a Bill in case we have not thought of it. Of course we take those comments into account.
This is a good opportunity to point out that my method of operating on Bills is to look at them and to use my judgment. I am quite happy to allow the people to decide whether my judgment or that of any other individual in this Assembly over three years has been entirely inappropriate. Under Hare-Clark with Robson rotation, the voters will be looking very carefully at how each individual responds and uses his or her judgment. In a proportional representation system with Robson rotation, electors will have the opportunity to say, "Yes, we think that Tony De Domenico is doing a very good job" or, "Yes, Michael Moore is doing a reasonable job", or vice versa. I suspect that they will be quite different people who say that in respect of the different members. That is one of the great advantages of proportional representation. It means that you get a range of views in the Assembly, and quite rightly so. Obviously, that was recognised by the people of the ACT in their very sensible, overwhelming support for such an electoral system.
Madam Speaker, having taken the opportunity to comment on that approach, I move on to the range of Bills in the legislation program. If the Government, after they have issued their drafting instructions, can indicate to us what is actually part and parcel of those Bills we will have time to think about how we should approach them. I know that at times - for example, with money Bills - that is not appropriate. But it may well be, for example, that an amendment to the Business Franchise ("X" Videos) Tax Act is in fact a money Bill, or it may well be that it is similar to the Bill put up by Mr Stevenson to prohibit the distribution of X-rated videos from the ACT. It would be helpful, where possible, for us to have some indication as to what the Government's intention is. It would also save us doubling up on work.
Madam Speaker, given the range of Bills being presented, I support Mr Humphries's perspective. This far into the budget sittings, we really should have more of these Bills on the table if we are to have any opportunity of debating them thoroughly and passing, rejecting or amending them as they come before the Assembly. Time is running out, and I think we should see more of these Bills tabled soon.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .