Page 3730 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think Ms Follett is reflecting on a vote of the Assembly taken last night, and that is improper under our standing orders.
MADAM SPEAKER: Let me consider that for a moment.
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that comment. May I say that I think it is extremely unfortunate that, by their failure to act on that Bill, matters which are of concern to a great many people in our community are now delayed by a further three months.
There was also an issue in relation to the Electoral Act, as it now is. Mr Humphries was publicly agitating for many months beforehand and in fact threatening to bring in his own Bill if we did not respond quickly enough. The fact is that, when the Government did introduce its Bill, because I wished to get some consensus and some agreement on the issues embodied in that Bill, there was a quite considerable delay before members opposite were in a position to debate it.
Mr Humphries: Four weeks is hardly a considerable delay.
MS FOLLETT: Members opposite say that four weeks is hardly a considerable delay, but it is the old slow-slow-quick-quick-slow. How long is long enough? How many Bills are too many for them? They cannot deal with what is on the agenda, yet they continue to criticise us for not having enough. The Mutual Recognition Bill had already been passed by some Liberal States, but we were urged to hold off for just a little while while they got their minds around it. There was the Food Act, for which Mr Humphries had portfolio responsibility during the time he was in government and where there was no progress whatsoever.
I think Mr Humphries is being somewhat disingenuous in bringing forward this matter yet again. I stand by the progress the Government is making. I certainly would like to see faster progress; but, with members opposite taking the attitude they do and taking as much time as they wish in dealing with issues, they have to recognise that this Government on its own does not have sufficient numbers to force its legislation through. You have to face that fact as well. If they believe that progress has been too slow, they must take a large share of that criticism. In some significant areas of government reform it has been the Opposition that has slowed us up, and we as a government lack the numbers to force the pace on them. That is what this is all about.
Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, I think this is a relatively harmless little MPI. It gives Mr Humphries a chance to beat his chest a little in a way that clearly he would rather be doing in other arenas, and I wish him the greatest of luck in those arenas.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .