Page 3953 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My motion would change the standing orders. It would require that, once a Bill has been presented, the next stage will not be the in-principle debate. We would have an opportunity to raise questions on the Bill. We adjourned a Bill just a few days ago. Michael Moore asked that the matter be agreed to in principle before it was sent to a committee. The idea was that people would not have to commit themselves to specific points but could ask questions, and I believe that some people in this house did ask questions to gain a better understanding of the legislation.
Is it not a good idea to be able to raise questions in the house - not just outside the house, but in the house - in front of the people of the ACT, without having to say that you agree or do not agree, but asking, "What about this position?" or "Perhaps the Minister could explain this, that or the other clause"? All members of the Assembly would be able to hear the comments of other members, without making the statement that we agree or disagree with the Bill. Does that not make sense?
The majority of the people of the ACT, according to our surveys, clearly want a minimum of 60 days - it was actually 60 to 90 days - to be allowed before any legislation, unless approved by an absolute majority in this Assembly as being urgent, is passed through the Assembly; in other words, 60 days from the day it is tabled to the day it is finally debated in the house. Sixty days is not long. We all understand how rapidly that can go by. I finish on what I believe is an extremely relevant point in this debate. Practically every member of this Assembly, certainly the majority, has said at one time or another that Bills are being rushed through this house. I make the point that that statement is usually made when the member is in opposition.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (10.52): Madam Speaker, there is a certain delicious irony about debating this measure this morning, when we have just witnessed a Bill Mr Moore introduced last Wednesday pass this house with no dissent. That demonstrates better than anything that the measure proposed by Mr Stevenson is unnecessary. The fundamental point in this Assembly, as in any parliament, is that the Assembly is the master of its own business. The Assembly decides the rate at which any Bill or measure passes through this Assembly. It is unnecessary to concoct a straitjacket, as Mr Stevenson would do, to require a period of 60 days - I think he said that he would really prefer 90 days, or perhaps 90 years - to prevent debate on any measure. In every case this Assembly decides the rate at which it will progress matters.
A Bill Mr Moore introduced last week, which makes some minor changes to his Epidemiological Studies Act, this Assembly decided with no dissent should be put through. Would that be an urgency matter? Urgency matters in most parliaments are matters that are brought forward to correct a major problem with revenue or a major issue of real public importance. An urgency Bill, when you look at the procedures of other places, usually is a matter of some earth-shattering consequence. Was Mr Moore's Bill that? I think one would be hard pressed to say that it was. There was a matter that should have been addressed. He addressed it in the Bill. Members here had a look at the matter and were happy to put it through, showing, Mr Stevenson, the flexibility this chamber has in dealing with matters.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .