Page 3737 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (4.13): Madam Speaker, it is of concern to me that the Government sees fit to criticise the work of members of this Assembly when our workload is predominantly dictated by the Government's own legislative program. My private secretary has taken a leaf out of the Attorney-General's research approach and has enjoyed counting the government Bills that have come forward before the Assembly this year. The legislation seems to appear in waves from the Government, with 21 Bills being introduced in April, much of this being carried over from the First ACT Legislative Assembly; three Bills in May; 26 in June; five in August; seven in September; five in October; and four last month: 71 Bills in seven months, and 68 of them passed. The Assembly has also seen 19 private members Bills presented, of which nine were passed.
What is of concern to me is not so much the number of Bills presented to the Assembly, but the timetabling of them. The Government has very efficiently tabled in each sitting period a government legislation program setting out amending and new legislation that they know they want introduced. Why, then, do we see two months in which more than 20 Bills are tabled and another five months with fewer than seven Bills introduced per sitting period?
I acknowledge that included in the bulk Bill deliveries was a raft of Bills - 10 as I recall - dealing with EEO principles. These Bills were passed without delay and were responsible for the bulge in the figures that statistically would make April look a little slower. Notwithstanding these changes, the program is still not one that shows a government in control of the legislative process. We have a legislative program that sets out almost six full pages of Bills and amending Bills, and I would be interested to hear further from the Government just what dictates when these Bills become available for presentation.
I note, as many others have done, that many of the first priorities of the Government Ministers have not been addressed. While I would in no way want to direct Ministers on the order in which they present Bills to the Assembly, I and others look upon the priority lists as being just that - the Government's order of priority for introducing legislation. It also indicates to me the range of issues the Government is confident it wants to address, without including those issues that are thrust into prominence by recent events in the ACT; for example, the degree of physical violence experienced by some people in Civic. Of the Chief Minister's priorities, only two first priority pieces of legislation have been introduced. The Deputy Chief Minister has finalised one amending Bill and one Bill and has released a discussion paper from his first priority list. The Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning has introduced one amending Bill from his first priority list and the Attorney-General has introduced three.
The most effective and efficient way to deal with the legislative program is to ensure that a steady stream of Bills and amending Bills are available which can be addressed in sufficient time to ensure comprehensive and competent debate. The community is not well served by its elected representatives when we are asked to move from feast to famine. We need time to arrange briefings, to complete our committee work, and to do the many and varied tasks that Assembly members are called upon to do. If the Government does have a program that it is following, I for one would appreciate its proceeding in a more measured way. This is not appropriate where urgent Bills are concerned; but, where we have a comprehensive list of amending Bills and new Bills in train, I request that we be given a more prioritised and orderly workload, which will enable us to complete effectively the necessary research and inquiries that are part of our work.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .