Page 414 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would disagree with the time limit imposed of 45 minutes or less for the debate. What is fair about that? The suggestion that the Bill should be forced on today is wrong anyway, and that relates to the time for the debate. We had a Bill last year, or in the past, that was narrowly passed. Mr Berry said that it was overwhelmingly passed. Until there is a better understanding of the word "overwhelmingly" I would not let any such person go out with any of our surveys. When we get a 10:7 result on our surveys, let me tell you, you will never in a million years catch me suggesting that it is an overwhelming result; it is less than 60 per cent.
If this Bill is going to be forced on today, members are not going to be allowed to go out and work to gain support for the Bill. It should not be against the law to introduce a Bill, even though you may not have the numbers. If that were the case, I probably would not get any in. Members have a right to introduce a Bill and, once the Bill is introduced, to go out and discuss the matter in the community, hold public meetings and so on. The community - the business community mainly, in this instance - then have a right to contact their members. There should never be a situation where we say that the matter is sealed and we will never change our viewpoint. If that is the case, that would be the greatest condemnation that anybody could level against this Assembly. We should not have forced it on today. It is an appalling precedent. If we are going to force it through, we should allow time for debate.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.27): Madam Speaker, I think the time allocated for this debate is quite reasonable. I make the comment too, while I am on my feet, that it seems that I can read a good deal faster than Mr Stevenson. There certainly are not many words in that Bill.
Mr Kaine: Did you understand what you read, though?
MR WOOD: It seems also that I can understand things faster than Mr Stevenson or Mr Kaine, because it is a fairly clear situation. It is a repeal Bill. It is repealing an Act that Mr Stevenson knows well because he has been in this Assembly since the day we first started discussing occupational health and safety. It has been long on the agenda here, and it is a clear matter of whether we continue our support of the Act or the Opposition continues its opposition to the Act. That is not a very difficult thing to understand. It can be debated quite quickly. Mr De Domenico does not suggest for a minute that he has to go away and spend hours writing up a speech and giving it consideration. I have no doubt that he has clearly in his mind the arguments he will use. We all understand the purposes behind the Bill and, on this side, the importance of the Bill. We should get onto it very quickly and get through it very quickly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .