Page 3965 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is important that this debate be held; it is important that those issues be placed on the table. But it is equally important that we are flexible enough to take account of the differences that exist in the requirements for this Assembly to consider the varying types of legislation that come before it. To impose the stricture Mr Stevenson is proposing is unfair and, in my view, unwarranted.
MR DE DOMENICO (11.37): Madam Speaker, I am going to be very brief. In fact, I was not going to contribute to this debate at all, because I think my colleagues Mr Kaine and Mr Humphries quite aptly put the position of the Liberal Party. However, I must rise to say that a lot of the things Mr Lamont had to say I vehemently disagree with, and a number of members on both sides of the house might tend to agree with me. Mr Lamont said that every decision made in this place is a political one. I dare say that that is not the case. Mr Lamont will realise that some of the decisions made in committees and other places from time to time are a long way from being political decisions. They are decisions made on commonsense, most of the time, one would hope.
I was in doubt as to the motion we were debating when I listened to Mr Lamont. He went on to attack Mr Stevenson personally, as is the wont from time to time of other members of this Assembly. That is fine; if he wants to do that, that is his prerogative. He mentioned percentages and polls and all sorts of things. For Mr Lamont's edification, perhaps he should have mentioned percentages and what people in Victoria thought about eight weeks ago. If one is to draw a corollary from his views of percentages, he should have mentioned what happened in Victoria as well.
To get back to the matter before us, as Mr Kaine and Mr Humphries quite ably put, the Liberal Party is very strongly with the sentiment Mr Stevenson brings forward in his proposed amendments to the standing orders. However, we will not be supporting Mr Stevenson's amendments, because we think they put too much of a restriction on what can and cannot be done in this house. However, the sentiments Mr Stevenson is attempting to convey here are supported by the Liberal Party, and perhaps by all members of this Assembly. There is no doubt that we need the ability to scrutinise legislation until we are satisfied that the interests of all the constituents we are here to represent are represented.
It is a fact of modern democratic life that parties that are in government have at their disposal a host more resources than members of the Opposition and Independents, and so be it. That is something we have to accept because the people of the ACT want it that way. However, as a member of the Liberal Party - and I am sure my colleagues will agree - I will not debate any piece of legislation in this place unless I am satisfied that the people I have been elected to represent have had ample opportunity of having a look at it, considering it, and then coming back to me with their views; and after that, that I have ample opportunity to go through the normal processes, whether it be moving amendments or debating the issue on the floor of this house or through a committee. Until I am satisfied that all those things happen, I will refuse to debate Bills in this place. It is not a matter of shying away from responsibilities or anything of that sort. It is making sure that we are committed to our responsibilities as members of this place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .