Page 463 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (4.26): Madam Speaker, the comments by the Attorney-General have partly reassured and partly alarmed me. I accept that this is a process that has to be gone through. That has been explained and that is clear enough. I am pleased to see that advice was taken; that it was received by the middle of January and that legislation was then commissioned. The Attorney himself has said that that process could have been opened up a bit more, or at least in theory it is possible to open it up a bit more so that others can see what is going on. I do not know whether I accept or understand the argument that someone might challenge the legislation if it is produced in draft form. It is a bit hard to see how they could challenge a piece of draft legislation. I do not know whether that argument means that the reason this legislation has been introduced and is being passed in the space of seven days is to try to cut off anybody who might try to challenge the legislation in the court. If that is the case I am greatly dismayed, and I think that is a most unfortunate way for the Government to behave.
Mr Kaine: Mr Moore would probably support that.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Moore would probably support it. The point is this: If you had advice in January which indicated that there needed to be a change in the laws, and if you had legislation available some time shortly after that, at least in draft form to start to be able to bring this process into a legal framework as determined by the High Court, why could you not have exposed that to some discussion, if only within the ranks of members of this Assembly - or, for that matter, within the broader community?
I might say on my own behalf - I have not discussed this with my colleagues: If you had a deadline to meet and you could not introduce legislation until a certain date in the Assembly, what is wrong with circulating a draft to other members of the Assembly a couple of weeks beforehand? I tell you now that if you had done that we would not have a concern about this because we would have seen it. We would have had time to discuss the principles with the people who are affected by it, and we would be in a position to come here and say, "This is legislation which we can support, or not support, and these are the reasons". Obviously, you would have a concern about someone bringing in the Bill over your heads. Obviously, we would have to do this on the basis that we were prepared to be gentlemen and to respect the confidentiality of the documents that you brought forward.
Mr Kaine: And we always are.
MR HUMPHRIES: We always are, and we always have been in the past when this has been used. I have to say, Madam Speaker, that there is no reason for a matter of this sensitivity not to be more widely canvassed. We are not here to sabotage the Government's finances. We do not oppose this Bill today because we want to see the Follett Government run out of money in the middle of May. We are concerned because we do not believe that the processes of law-making are being properly exercised by passing legislation, important legislation, just seven days after it is introduced into the house. I say in that respect that you could circumvent that process by being a bit more open about it.
Debate interrupted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .