Page 3744 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 9 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS GRASSBY (4.36), in reply: As chairman of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation, I feel it necessary to make some comments regarding this report. I do not accept that Mr Connolly suggested that the committee has a role in policy scrutiny. Rather, in my opinion, he merely noted that an unintended consequence of one Bill had not been noted by him, his advisers, the Opposition - as Mr Humphries has said as shadow Attorney-General - or the committee. Madam Speaker, I do not take this as any criticism of the committee, and I note that Mr Connolly said to the committee last night, when we asked him to come and speak to us, that no such criticism was intended.
Madam Speaker, in report No. 19 the committee has noted the comments attributed to the Attorney-General in the Canberra Times that the members of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee do not make comments on policy aspects of the legislation that it examines. The committee feels that this matter should not be commented on by the committee as the committee's terms of reference do not cover these policy matters. Professor Whalan does an excellent job and the committee keeps to its terms of reference. The Minister explained his comments to the committee last night, and I am satisfied that he did not intend any criticism of the committee. I think we are nitpicking here. Mr Humphries and Ms Szuty were upset about the comment. They spoke to the Minister, who cleared the situation up. I was quite happy with his explanation. I do not think we need to go any further than the statement we made at the end of the report of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation which I tabled. I feel it is nitpicking for others to go on about the matter after the Minister had explained the situation to us.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
ASSEMBLY PREMISES - REFURBISHMENT OF SOUTH BUILDING
Ministerial Statement
Debate resumed from 18 November, on motion by Mr Connolly:
That the Assembly takes note of the paper.
MR WESTENDE (4.39): Madam Speaker, I will be very short. All things being equal, we would all have probably preferred a purpose designed new building. However, having regard to the time and the financial constraints, the South Building is probably the best available alternative. Now that the committee has decided to proceed with the South Building, the Liberal Party agrees with this concept. It will give the Assembly a civic focus right in the centre of the Civic central business district.
However, Madam Speaker, we must not take the South Building in isolation. With the Assembly to be located at Civic Square, we should aim for a total Civic concept. That is, we should look at a theatre complex, including the link building which is often used for small gallery-type displays. Once the Assembly is located in its new home, more and more people will be drawn to this area of Civic. We should therefore enhance the idea of a civic centre including the upgrading of the current two theatres and gallery. As such, the committee of which you are the chair, Madam Speaker, may wish to take that on board and/or refer it to another committee.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .