Page 375 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
such as "sausage factory". I think I was the first to use that in a press release when we were in opposition once, Mr Humphries, but it is always a good old opposition standby - "The parliament is being used as a sausage factory; the Government is treating us all with contempt".
Madam Speaker, in a chamber like this - elected on proportional representation, with no one party dominating the chamber - the fact is that the chamber selects its own course and speed for legislation. If the chamber has difficulties with a Bill it can refer it to a committee. It has done that in the past. I will not reflect on the debate but we differed with the view of the Assembly on a particular Bill. The view of the Assembly was that it would be sent off. It can always do that.
Is this process unprecedented? Madam Speaker, as you were ruling on the issue of "a sitting", I was looking for precedents to see whether this issue of introducing a Bill within a few days without an urgency motion could be establishing a precedent. One finds that it can. On 11 December 1990, a Tuesday, the Alliance Government introduced two Bills - the Motor Traffic (Alcohol and Drugs) (Amendment) Bill and the Magistrates Court (Amendment) Bill - and two days later the Assembly passed those Bills. Interestingly enough, there was some debate in the detail stage on some of that. The Opposition then had gone out and done its work and had a debate with the Government on some issues. There was certainly no urgency motion. So there is a clear precedent establishing that the point of order that Mr Humphries took was fanciful. This Assembly has previously well established that it can take Bills within a single sitting week.
If you want to look at examples of substantial legislation introduced one week and passed the next week, those last two sitting weeks in 1990 saw the passage by this place of some very substantial legislation - the abolition of the Gaming and Liquor Authority and the Territory owned corporations legislation. They were substantial pieces of legislation. This debate about our treating the Assembly with contempt because we are bringing in important Bills and seeking to have them debated is merely Opposition rhetoric when they do not have any substance to debate. We have shown in the past, when we were in opposition, that we were prepared to debate matters of substance when they were important issues. The Territory owned corporations legislation was a good example.
Mrs Carnell: Declare it urgent.
MR CONNOLLY: No, that was not the practice that the Liberal Party adopted in the past. The Territory owned corporations legislation is a good example. The issue and principle there was one that had been subject to community debate and discussion for some time, as one could say of the issue of these Bills - whether the administration of the health system of this Territory ought be under a statutory authority or ministerial direction. The issue has been in the public domain for quite some time and the Bill implementing it has been introduced and we bring it before the Assembly for debate. The simple fact of the matter, Madam Speaker, is that members opposite, when in government, conducted themselves in exactly the same fashion in which we conduct ourselves; that is, they brought legislation into this Assembly when it was ready, when they thought it was - - -
Mr Humphries: That is untrue. Those were isolated incidents. They were not consistent, as yours are.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .