Page 2461 - Week 09 - Thursday, 17 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
allow time for people to understand what the legislation is about. We must allow time for people that it would impinge upon to be able to come along to us and say, "Yes, you have done a good job on that, but there are a couple of points here", or, "Overall the principle is wrong; let us look at it this way".
We need legislation that does not reduce our democratic freedoms. Unfortunately, much of our legislation does. A Bill passed today reverses the onus of proof. That has become very common in this and other parliaments in Australia. Most of all, we need to ensure that legislation is not passed until adequate public consultation has occurred. I think you well understand that when I say "adequate consultation" I mean at least two months. People would have an opportunity to do what needs to be done to understand legislation. It is not just one, two or three pages. Much of the legislation that comes through this Assembly is longer than the entire Australian Constitution. First of all, legislation should not be passed unless it is supported by the majority of the people in this community.
All people in this Assembly, and outside in the community, business organisations and others, have spoken at one time or another about a vision, a grand plan. Where is that vision for the ACT? Where is that plan? We make statements, but have we drawn up a plan? Could we go and talk to people outside, and ask 100 of them, "What is the plan for ACT? Where are we going?"? Some might say, "Well, we are going to a place where there are increased taxes, reduced freedoms and more borrowings". Could we in this Assembly agree on a plan for the ACT? Here we are, 17 members, supposedly managing and governing the ACT, and we do not have a plan that we agree on and understand. There is a corporate plan for ACTION buses. They have a mission statement, a goal. It says, "To provide an efficient and effective bus service for the ACT community". That is the same as last year. It is clear and understandable. Actually, it is a very good corporate plan. Where is the plan that we have in the ACT? What about Australia? How will we succeed without a plan?
But there are plans. I have a particular plan. It may not be agreed to by everybody in this Assembly, although some believe in it. Self-government should be abolished. But that is only part of it. It should be replaced by a municipal council, or by a city council, with a lord mayor. We should administer a flourishing community, a flourishing capital, according to the will of people in Canberra. This would involve members of parliament, free of improper influence or control, who are able to speak on any subject as they see fit; people who are able to act in accordance with the constitutional law.
Mr Berry: Who is improperly influenced? There is an imputation - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Just a minute, Mr Stevenson. There is a point of order.
Mr Berry: There is an imputation in what he just said that members in the Assembly are improperly influenced, and I think that ought to be withdrawn.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson, we heard you say that we are being improperly influenced. Is that correct?
MR STEVENSON: Let me deviate and make the point.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .