Page 3963 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Lamont: It is a luxury you will never have, Gary.
MR HUMPHRIES: We have once before, Mr Lamont, and we just might again. Madam Speaker, we can see some benefit in having clear rules laid down in the standing orders. Perhaps we should revisit this question if the problem continues to fester. For the time being, I think we can exploit the situation we find ourselves in, which is that the Government is a minority government, to establish a set of standards which I hope will be the standards for governments on this side of the chamber and on the other side.
MR LAMONT (11.27): This is an extremely important debate for the Assembly. Notwithstanding that the Liberal Opposition have indicated that they will be voting against the proposition put by Mr Stevenson, and Mr Moore has indicated that he will be voting against it, it is nevertheless an extremely important matter for us to discuss and debate. It requires us to lay bare the bones of how the Government works, how the administration works, in relation to its legislative program.
If you lay those bones bare, you find that there are four major sets, if you like. The first is the proactive legislation that is introduced, where a government has a particular policy, particularly in relation to things such as social policy, that is arrived at after considerable party or individual member debate within members' own networks and is put up as part of an election strategy. That is the type of proactive legislation that governments tend to introduce. I might also say that it is the type of proactive legislation that Independents, members of minor parties and the Liberal Opposition also attempt to introduce through private members business.
The second category is reactive legislation, which is probably no better demonstrated than by the Bill that was passed this morning, and is similar to the Bill that was passed last night. That legislation covers circumstances where, for whatever reason, it is essential that this legislature redress or rectify a particular anomaly or error or omission. It has to be acknowledged that, where that omission or error has been recognised and needs to be redressed, a period of contemplation, to put it kindly, as proposed by Mr Stevenson is quite patently unwarranted. Therefore, the strictures placed on this legislature by the procedures outlined in Mr Stevenson's proposition would be a nonsense.
The other two planks are revenue and expenditure, which are principally dealt with through the budget process. In relation to revenue and matters affecting money, we see a raft of legislation coming forward over the life of any Assembly, outside the strict presentation of the budget and its scrutiny by the appropriate committee of the Assembly. To name one that is on the notice paper at the moment, if we look at the proposal for the Ambulance Service levy - without wishing to debate the merits of that proposal, which I am sure we will take delight in doing this afternoon - we can address that issue without the strictures proposed by Mr Stevenson's motion. It is a simple proposition, and one that I am sure Mr Kaine would agree is easily understood, even by the Opposition.
Lastly, the expenditure Bills that are introduced into this parliament through the budget process are probably subject to the most scrutiny. They have a particular process, in terms of their passage, that is quite clearly identified in the way in which we conduct our business. Those are the four planks of the legislation programs that I have encountered in this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .