Page 3968 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think Mr Stevenson misunderstands - no, I do not think he misunderstands, because I think he does follow what happens here. He knows how this place works. He has put himself in a difficult position with this proposal by assuming that all Bills are the same, that they all have to be put off for at least 60 days. But not all Bills are the same. There is a tremendous variety. They differ one from the other. Let me give a couple of examples. Today or tomorrow I will be raising again the Land (Planning and Environment) (Amendment) Bill to change the way I table leases in this Assembly. That is something that I would expect, after comments around this Assembly, would be dealt with fairly quickly. It is not a significant piece of legislation, I have to say.
Another piece of legislation I have is that affecting the proposal we have for an environmental commissioner. Whereas I would expect the leases matter to be dealt with quickly, and it would be ludicrous to delay that for 60 days, my proposals for an environmental commissioner need a great deal of public comment and wide discussion. For that reason, I will put out a discussion paper on the environment commission. I am spreading it around as widely as I can, to get comment. When that is done we will draw up legislation based on that discussion paper and comments that result. I have not decided whether I will put the legislation out for public debate or table it in here, and I do not expect that when I table it here eventually I will want to deal with it overnight. But I do expect that, having had that circulated widely in the community, and it appearing as a form that is acceptable to as many as possible, it will be dealt with within the Assembly. It is a different matter. It is not proceeding rapidly, nor does it need to.
For Mr Stevenson to want automatically to put away for 60 days every Bill that comes before the house fails to recognise the way this Assembly works. It is unrealistic and impractical, and I think it is a matter of Mr Stevenson following his political line.
MRS GRASSBY (11.52): Madam Speaker, I find this absolutely incredible of Mr Stevenson. We all know that Dennis takes Dennis polls. What he does not understand is that, between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, we have 5,000 to 6,000 card-carrying members of our parties. That is a lot more than you have ever polled, Mr Stevenson. Both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party already have views on Bills that are going through this house.
We are parties who have been around for a long time, whom people understand. We are not fly-by-nights like Mr Stevenson, who comes into this house and is here for a short time and then gone, as I am quite sure he will be. We are parties that will be around a long time after Mr Moore and Ms Szuty have gone. As we all know, Independents and small parties very rarely last in Australian politics. The reason is that, as parties, we have people behind us. We have party meetings once a month - - -
Mr De Domenico: Sometimes, unfortunately so, Mrs Grassby.
MRS GRASSBY: That is quite so, unfortunately; but in a democratic society this is the way I would rather it be. I would rather be responsible to people in a party who have put together policies. Whether I agree with the Liberal Party's policies or not is not the point; there are many people who support them and their policies, just as there are many people who support the Labor Party and their policies.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .