Page 3958 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Lamont: You have convinced them. The power of persuasion of our Attorney!
MR KAINE: There was no persuasion at all. He was off on the left foot, instead of on the right foot, right from the start. He added nothing to the debate but merely turned it into some sort of political harangue. The fact is that the Liberal Party does not support this either, because it puts the Assembly into a straitjacket. It sets down timescales which in many cases would be totally inappropriate. The Liberal Party solution is totally different. Contentious legislation is brought down where the Government desires, for its own reasons, to move it through quickly and the Opposition has equally good reasons why it does not believe that it should be allowed to go through so quickly. There may be matters that are unexplained, ramifications that we do not understand - and often, I think, ramifications that the Government itself does not understand.
The way to deal with that, and we have put it forward before, is to refer that sort of contentious matter to a committee to review people's concerns and make sure that it is properly dealt with. When it comes back to the Assembly, the contentious issues have at least been dealt with. We still may not agree at the end of the day; but we have had an opportunity to air the differences, not in the heat of the moment, not in the public gaze here on the floor of the Assembly, where it can often be quite unproductive.
That procedure would allow us to refer things to committees on a selective basis. Not everything would go to a committee. In fact, probably a minority of pieces of legislation would go to a committee. As long as the Liberal Party in opposition can see what the Government intends to do, as long as it is clear, as long as there is nothing we find incomprehensible and in general terms we can accommodate them, we will not even oppose the legislation. We have demonstrated many times that, where the Government is seen to be doing something which is useful, even though we do not necessarily agree with the philosophy behind it, we will support the Government's legislation.
Mr Connolly tried to make something of the situation two years ago when the Alliance Government put through quite a deal of legislation. We believed at the time that it was necessary, and the drink-driving one was a classic one. Christmas was on us. We had a bad record in the past in terms of drink-driving, we thought something should be done about it right then, and we achieved that. We have a record of putting through legislation when we think it needs to be done. But we believe, and it will come up in the debate later today, that with a number of the Bills the Government has put before us in the last few days and which they wish to pass this week there is no urgency. If there were, we would take a different view. The Government has not attempted to establish urgency, and it is within their power to do so under the standing orders if they think it is a matter of urgency. We have not had an opportunity, in the short time available, to explore just what the consequences of the Bills are likely to be.
Under those circumstances, no opposition with any sense of responsibility is going to agree to their being passed because the Government thinks they should be passed today or tomorrow. We would be abdicating our responsibility totally if we agreed to such action. We will be suggesting to the responsible Ministers, first of all, that there is no urgency and, secondly, that there are matters that we believe need to be explored before those Bills are endorsed by this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .