Page 3729 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One issue, for instance, was the error in the Bail Act, which the Government will be overcoming at the first possible opportunity. That has emerged as an issue later than our presentation of the legislative program. Such legislation is a first priority proposal which will be delivered; yet it does not figure in Mr Humphries's equation. Nor does he allow for the fact that the addition of such urgent and unforeseen items to the program will act to displace other Bills from the first priority category.
Mr Humphries has a very black-and-white view of this issue, and it is not a black-and-white issue. Mr Humphries's analysis is also somewhat illogical because it does not have any regard for the fact that the Government has in place a process for the systematic review and possible downgrading of legislation proposals that no longer satisfy the first priority criteria. In this sitting, 26 proposals that were originally given first priority status were subsequently downgraded by the Government to second priority. Again, Mr Humphries has not taken that factor into consideration.
He has given no regard to external influences. One of the external influences I would like to draw to attention, mainly because it affects my portfolio rather more than anybody else's, is the High Court decision in relation to the validity of the Business Franchise ("X" Videos) Act. The High Court decision has led to a number of revenue proposals being put on hold while the implications of the decision are assessed. Obviously, that is an external influence that has affected our legislation program but which was clearly beyond our control and which we have to take into account, even if Mr Humphries does not. If Mr Humphries wants to be even-handed, he ought to take into account factors such as those when he rises to judge the Government's performance.
Having exposed just a few of the holes in Mr Humphries's arguments, I indicate that the Government would like to see greater certainty in its legislative agenda. I do not know of any government that would not wish to see such greater certainty. To achieve that end, we are reviewing procedures with a view to having a system that can provide a much firmer prediction for the Assembly of likely Bills in place for 1993. We are conscious ourselves that the legislative program as presented does not set out all the information that might give members a complete picture of what it is the Government will be proceeding with during the year. We are attempting to clarify that issue for members and for our own benefit as well.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I take with a grain of salt the criticism Mr Humphries has levelled at the Government. It is a case of the old slow-slow-quick-quick-slow - the Liberal foxtrot. You can never tell with members opposite whether you have brought in enough Bills, whether you have given them enough time, too much time or not enough time, or whether they will at any stage be prepared to discuss any Bill that may be before this Assembly.
We had last night the, I think, quite scandalous failure to deal with a piece of vital social reform in the Adoption Bill. The community has been waiting on that Bill for years, not months. That Bill in exposure form has been around for many months, and I think it is downright irresponsible of members to have forced a delay of at least a further three months in making that essential reform.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .