Page 3971 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 16 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly said that this chamber has total sovereignty. I note that he did not comment much about the expressed majority will of the people in this community. Other members, particularly those of the Labor Party, spoke about the people who are members of the Labor Party. Let us look at the truth. Less than 2 per cent of the Australian population are members of political parties. Any suggestion that the parties therefore represent the people is, of course, a nonsense.
Mr Connolly talked about urgent legislation. The matter is simple. Legislation is urgent or it is not urgent. If it is not urgent, it does not have to be pushed through. If it is urgent, it can be. He spoke well to the motion. He said that I would force the Labor Party or perhaps the Assembly to make a farce of a declaration of urgency. I would not force the issue. I would do everything in my power to encourage a genuine declaration of urgency. Those that are not genuine should not be approved.
Mr Kaine reiterated the suggestion that I would place a straitjacket on the Assembly. In respect of some of the Bills that members of this Assembly try to ram through without community communication, indeed I would. Mr Kaine suggested that matters could go before a committee, but should not be in the public gaze where things may become contentious. I would put them in the public gaze, contentious or otherwise. Let the people hear; let the people see.
The Attorney-General referred to some of the matters the Liberals rushed through. Let us look at some of the Labor ones. The Labor Party would have passed the amendment to the Animal Welfare Bill in about seven days. Other members combined to ensure that that did not happen. It was just as well that Labor did not have a ninth member in this house. Otherwise, people would not have had that opportunity. They also refused to talk to representatives of the circus industry. At one time during consultation on the Animal Welfare Bill I know that John MacDonnell visited your office on the spur of the moment, and you had a brief consultation. After that, there was no consultation - - -
Mr Lamont: Not true.
MR STEVENSON: All right; give me the evidence. Mr Kaine said that I am trying to impose too rigid a regime. Unfortunately, after four years, I have not the slightest doubt that we need some rigid regime to prevent members from ramming Bills through, before the public can find out about them. Mr Humphries then spoke so well. He presented the case of a noted criminal lawyer in the ACT who needed a few days to give a comment on a Bill before the house. Where has he been? He has obviously never been around the Assembly. He knows nothing about how this place operates. If he did, he would know that, if he is asked for an opinion, he needs to drop everything and hand it over straightaway; otherwise, it will be dead in the water, because the Bill will probably have been passed.
Mr Moore said that it is so important for me to have this motion passed because I conduct polls. No, that is not the reason, Mr Moore. The reason is that people should have an opportunity to find out about the legislation. Mr Moore said that members should use judgment. I suggest that this so-called judgment is usually simply an opinion and carries no more weight than the opinion of any of the other 293,000 people in this community. They should have a say.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .