Page 3954 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stevenson made reference to a Bill we debated last week. Without wishing to recanvass the issues, again the irony was that we were talking about a Bill that had been out in exposure draft form since at least February of this year. It had been out and about, with the exception of a few clauses we changed, for some 10 months. We took a different view. We thought it was appropriate to debate it; but this Assembly decided, "No, we will not deal with that Bill; we will refer it to a committee".
This chamber has total sovereignty to decide how it deals with matters as they emerge. It has demonstrated that flexibility, just taking those two measures. A measure Mr Moore introduced last Wednesday passed this Wednesday. Indeed, the "fight in a public place" law, which I introduced last Thursday, passed yesterday. Again, would one get that up, in the normal forms of a house, as an urgent Bill, with all that that entails? Possibly not. But it was a problem members unanimously thought should be addressed. Members had a look at the matter and they were happy to pass it last night without any dissent. So, there are two examples of Bills that have passed within a week of introduction.
Then there is the Adoption Bill, a matter which had been out in the public forum for quite some time. Again, I do not canvass the merits of the decision members made, in order to stay within standing orders; but members decided, in their wisdom or otherwise, that it should be referred to a committee. We said in that debate that the concept of referring a substantive Bill to a committee was one that the Government does not cavil with, although on the merits of that particular Bill we took issue.
We have said in the chamber, and I have certainly said it to members outside the chamber, that some of the measures we have flagged on our legislation program might be referred to a committee, a good example being our de factos legislation. When that comes in it will be a quite significant piece of law reform. It will make important changes to the civil law, and it might be appropriate, when I bring the Bill into this chamber, for the Assembly to refer it to the Social Policy Committee or a select committee. Indeed, the Assembly might want to operate committee of the whole procedures to debate it. There is a range of measures available.
I come back to the fundamental point that this Assembly, like any parliament in Australia, is the master of its own business and can decide flexibly how it deals with matters. Given the fact that this is a chamber in which no party has a majority, to use the rhetoric of ramming legislation through is rather fanciful. This Government does not have the ability to do that, even if it wanted to. Quite often, we would want to.
Mr Stevenson: I admire truthfulness from the Minister.
MR CONNOLLY: Unlike Mr Humphries, I am honest while I am in government as well as in opposition. That can sometimes be frustrating for executive government. Members opposite who have been in executive government would know that there is always a certain frustration in the process of getting Bills before the chamber, and once you get them here you want them dealt with quickly. While we may often want them to be dealt with more quickly, we acknowledge that this chamber sets its own timetable. We would say that it is better that that be flexible rather than have the sort of straitjacket that Mr Stevenson wants to introduce, because it introduces this artificial element of having to declare a Bill to be urgent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .