Page 3640 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This morning Mr Connolly described the proposed action by Liberal and Independent members to refer this Bill to the Social Policy Committee as treating the matter as a political football. What could be further from the truth? The whole modus operandi of Assembly committees involves members of those committees discussing issues and resolving difficulties in a non-partisan political manner. It seems to me that the best way of resolving issues concerning adoption is through this process.
Madam Speaker, I understand the hopes and expectations of some members of the community who wish to see the Adoption Bill passed today. However, to debate the Bill in one day, following a lengthy lead-up process, with an extensive period before gazettal to follow, would be to give scant regard to the role of this Assembly. I believe that the community will be better served by the Social Policy Committee and, at a later stage, the Assembly considering the Bill once multipartisan support has been achieved. I commend Mrs Carnell's motion to the Assembly.
MR STEVENSON (9.18): I understand that some people would like to see this Bill passed today. However, there are others who believe that it is wiser to spend more time. The key to legislation is not what happens before the Bill is tabled in this house or any other parliament. What is in a draft Bill and what is discussed may not be in the Bill that is tabled in the parliament. We have seen this again and again in this house. The animal welfare legislation is one example. At the last minute, amendments were presented to ban animal circuses. If it were not for the same members in this house tonight who will vote to allow more time for this Bill, that legislation would have been passed without anyone having the opportunity to comment on it. Mr Wood stretches a little and makes a couple of noises, but he knows full well that again and again in this Assembly the ALP would ram Bills through with no opportunity for people in the community to have access. Do not worry about just other members of the Assembly whom you talk about again and again; what about the community?
The Electoral Bill was the result of a fraudulent referendum on the people of Canberra in that it did not give us a choice of a single electorate, which most people prefer and which the Australian Electoral Commission recommended. That was another example of a Bill that you would have put through in about a week. That is what you would have done. Let people know what you think of their rights to look at legislation. What you say legislation means and what we actually find within the clauses of legislation quite often are two entirely different things. I make it a point not to listen to the tabling speech, and usually not to read it. I find that it is just misleading. The way to find out what the Bill means is to read the Bill, and that takes considerable time.
This Bill, which is longer than the Australian Constitution, has 51 pages. People in Canberra believe that there should be a minimum of two months from the time any legislation is tabled to the time it is improved by this Assembly. The delay in this matter will not be considerable, and it is something that we should make sure happens. It is not a matter of passing a Bill; it is a matter of passing the right legislation. I am sure that the Social Policy Committee and the people that are concerned about this will have that opportunity.
Mrs Grassby: Dennis, I bet you are worried about them. Like hell! You could not care less.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .