Page 3960 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: The interjection from the former Chief Minister gives us now not only a Dennis poll but also a Gary poll. Now that Gary is in opposition, he can be honest about the way he asks the questions. When he next comes into government, will he continue to be honest or not?
Polling is a technique that Mr Stevenson uses, and I understand that there are people in Canberra who think it is a very good idea - in addition to Mr Stevenson himself. I have spoken to one of them, who may be the only such person - but that is another question. I think the real intent behind this motion is to give Mr Stevenson the time to be able to do the polling. Whilst it is important at times to be able to deal flexibly with Bills, it is also important for us, where possible, to give the appropriate amount of time for community consultation. If Mr Stevenson's form of consultation is polling, that is fine. Others of us prefer to send copies of Bills to key players for their comments, and to discuss them with our advisers or with people who we think may have some contribution to make. Like Mr Connolly and Mr Kaine, I feel that the sentiment of Bills having a reasonable amount of time on the table is appropriate. This system, however, is much too rigid.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.18): Although Mr Connolly probably sees himself as a latter-day Australian Kennedy figure, I must say that I am glad that he was not living in an age when he might have been President of the United States, with his finger on the nuclear button. He probably would have launched the missile against the Soviet Union several times as a pre-emptive strike against what they might do. Certainly, a pre-emptive strike is what he launched today.
Mr Kaine: Against an enemy that did not exist.
MR HUMPHRIES: It did not exist. If he had cared to discuss it with the Opposition, he might have found that that was a little premature, and he could have saved his ICBMs until the next occasion.
Madam Speaker, we agree with the diagnosis of the problem that Mr Stevenson has brought forward today, but we disagree with the treatment. We have a huge concern about the program and the way the Government has put it forward. I want to make a brief comment about this old quick-quick-slow-slow furphy that keeps coming out from the Government and their concern about the fact that we give them advice on occasions to speed things up and on other occasions to slow things down. If they have any genuine concern about what we over here think on that question, they might care to take this piece of advice.
We think that legislation of an important nature for the future of the Territory ought, as a general rule, to be brought forward into the public gaze as soon as possible. Clearly, a lot of work has to be done to get legislation into a state where that can happen. Sometimes it is the actual legislation the Government wants to pass; sometimes it is an exposure draft of legislation; sometimes it is just a discussion paper so that people can see what general concepts are being talked about. In any case, we argue consistently for that to be brought forward as quickly as possible - this is the quick-quick part - into the public gaze so that the community as a whole has a chance to talk about these issues. That is our position in the Liberal Party.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .