Page 3062 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 17 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CORNWELL (4.36): Madam Speaker, I support the amendment. I take this opportunity to raise a matter which I trust Mr Moore will respond to shortly. I understand that one of the reasons for extending this term of reference was that the committee wished to interview further young people from our schools, and in fact had extended the inquiry and interviewing of young people from the college area down to the high schools. I have some reservations about that, and Mr Moore, when he makes a response, may give me an answer. Whilst college students are what can best be described as young adults, quite capable of making decisions for themselves, I am a little apprehensive that interviews may be being conducted at the high school level with students who are 14 years of age or perhaps even 15. I would like confirmation, if Mr Berry would allow Mr Moore to listen to me, that procedures are being taken to ensure that parental permission, if required for under-age students, is being obtained for this type of thing.
Mr Wood: He should get into non-government schools too, of course.
MR CORNWELL: It is a matter of approaching the schools, Mr Wood, as you are aware. At the same time, it is not simply a matter, I would suggest, if you are dealing with 14- and 15-year-olds, of getting the approval of the principal. I would like to have confirmation from Mr Moore that, even if the principal's view has been sought, a further step has been taken in relation to parents.
The other point I would like to make in support of Mr De Domenico's motion is that nothing Mr Moore has said about forming some sort of grand design with other parliaments is relevant to this reference. There is nothing to stop Mr Moore getting together with other parliamentarians across the country and having a discussion or an inquiry or a convention, if he wishes, on alcohol or on drugs. But I do not believe that it is relevant to have a grouping of parliaments from across Australia on this specific reference, relating only to this Assembly and to the ACT. Therefore, I do not believe that Mr Moore's proposition of extending this reference until June is in any way justified.
MS SZUTY (4.39): Mr Moore has sought this extension of time for the life of the Select Committee on Drugs in his role as presiding member of the committee. He has made the judgment that the committee needs a longer time to complete its task, and I believe that in this instance his judgment should be supported. I urge members not to support the amendment proposed by Mr De Domenico.
Amendment negatived.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.40): Madam Speaker, I am amazed, quite frankly, at the Government's position on this. What Mr Berry has done is specifically set aside the standing orders of the Assembly. The fact is that the matter Mr Moore wants the committee to take up is not part of its terms of reference. Mr Moore can keep on thinking up new terms of reference for his committee as long as this Assembly stays in place. That is setting aside our standing orders and the fact that we have a series of standing committees whose job is to take on most matters of concern to this Assembly.
This select committee that Mr Moore keeps on perpetuating has now had a longer existence than any of the standing committees of this Assembly. How absurd can you get? If Mr Berry is anxious to support Mr Moore in convening some sort of national convention, I submit that he should do it, but not through the medium of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .