Page 3961 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What we do say on top of that - this is where the slow-slow part comes in - is that it needs to be in that public gaze for sufficient time for people to recognise what it is they are dealing with. We are completely opposed to a process where the Government takes months or even years to develop legislation and then expects the Opposition and the community to swallow the legislation, just like that, without the time to understand properly what it is that the Government has actually done. That is quick-quick-slow-slow, but the formula is pretty clear. If the Government cannot understand that, they are not as intelligent as they make themselves out to be.
We have a concern about the haste with some Bills. We feel that there has been a level of concern, not just here but in the community as a whole, about that. For example, I spoke yesterday to a prominent Canberra lawyer about a piece of legislation before the Assembly. I explained that I would appreciate his opinion on this piece of legal legislation and he said, "I will get back to you in a few days". I said, "I am sorry; the legislation is due to be debated in the Assembly this week". He said, "What has happened with this Government? Why does this Government feel the need to ram legislation through at a hundred miles an hour when the consequences are quite significant?". Naturally enough, I had no answer to that question.
If Mr Connolly or other Ministers who have responsibility for those sorts of Bills cared to talk to members of the community, such as this lawyer, they might appreciate that there is some concern about it. It is not just us mouthing off about having to deal with Bills in a short period of time.
Mr Connolly: It was not Bill Stefaniak, by any chance, was it?
MR HUMPHRIES: No, it was not Mr Stefaniak. It is not just us mouthing off about that; it is a general concern of a large number of people in this community.
Mr Wood: What was the Bill?
MR HUMPHRIES: It was the Crimes (Amendment) Bill (No. 3), as a matter of fact - the one we passed last night. This was a prominent criminal lawyer in the ACT whose opinion I think you would respect, Mr Wood.
We have had to come back to this place, I remind members, to fix up defects in Acts that we have not picked up because of the speed with which those Acts have been passed.
Mr Connolly: With both governments, yes.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Connolly makes a point about our not picking up those mistakes either. I quite agree.
Mr Connolly: No; I said "for both governments".
MR HUMPHRIES: For both governments, yes. We have both had to fix up problems, and it is a message to both of us that perhaps a little longer exposure in the public arena might just have avoided the need for that to happen. Last week a piece of legislation had to be passed very quickly to correct the situation where in domestic violence matters we were charging people with assault, whether they deserved to be charged or not. We were charging people in certain circumstances without justification, in order to fix up a problem with our legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .