Page 3966 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
For Mr Lamont to say, on the one hand, what an important issue this is, and then to waste our time for about 10 minutes with personal invective about various members of this Assembly, I think, is a shame. However, as it is his wont from time to time, and that of other members, there is nothing we can do to stop him doing that. That is the beauty of democracy. The Liberal Party will not be supporting Mr Stevenson's amendments. However, his sentiments we certainly do support.
MS SZUTY (11.41): Mr Stevenson has proposed a motion about which I too feel strongly. I have spoken on the matter on several occasions in this Assembly, most particularly during a matter of public importance debate in June, when the issue was raised by Mr Stevenson, and also in the debate on the matter of public importance raised last week by Mr Humphries on the legislative program.
Philosophically, like other members, I tend to agree with Mr Stevenson's position in that it is ideal if Bills are considered carefully in a number of stages - the in-principle stage and the detail stage - before a decision is reached on them. In the platform on which I stood for election, the Michael Moore Independent Group indicated a preference for Bills to lie on the table for a considerable time prior to debate. This enables a number of things to occur. It enables the Bills to be read carefully, briefings to be obtained by members, discussion with community interest groups and individuals to occur, discussion with other members of the Assembly to occur, draft amendments to be proposed, and speeches, ideas and thoughts on the issues contained in the Bills to be prepared for debate.
However, I also acknowledge that there are times when matters need to be dealt with expeditiously. Mr Connolly referred to two examples, which I would also like to quote: This morning when Mr Moore proposed his Epidemiological Studies (Confidentiality) (Amendment) Bill 1992, a matter which was brought on relatively quickly; and yesterday when we were debating the Crimes (Amendment) Bill (No. 3), which was introduced by Mr Connolly last week. The Government also has the right, I believe, to declare Bills urgent and to deal with them expeditiously, and that is a point Mr Stevenson acknowledges in his motion.
Last week, in the debate on the Government's legislative program, I made the point that it is the Government that has control of its legislative program, and it is important for the Government to order its agenda so that Bills can be dealt with appropriately by this Assembly. Mr Connolly's comments also referred to the role this Assembly has in deciding its own destiny. Speaking, if I may, on behalf of some of the members of this Assembly, we would take the view that we do not necessarily wish to hold up government legislation for no perceived purpose. We consider legislation in this place seriously, and I believe that many of us do not see the process as a political point scoring exercise. I think the consideration of Bills in this Assembly is best done through some negotiation, with regard for other members' timetables in dealing with legislation.
Madam Speaker, I will not be supporting Mr Stevenson's motion, as I regard it as being too prescriptive. However, I believe in the ideal, as other members have stated, of ordinarily considering Bills over a longer, more reasonable timeframe. I believe that our request for a longer period to deal with Bills in most instances is a consideration that needs to be taken on by the Government in this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .