Page 647 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 23 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Government announced in February that it intended to introduce major legislation. That is what the Chief Minister said - major legislation. The finance Bill introduced in February simply changes existing legislation. The gaming machine legislation only modified existing legislation. That was ostensibly only to match legislation that already exists in New South Wales. These adjustments might be useful but you can hardly call them major. The Bill to establish the Health Complaints Unit, the food legislation, the Bills to register psychologists and podiatrists and the national uniform legislation for other health professionals all relate to legislative matters carried over from last year and, in some cases, the last five years. There is nothing new or major in any of those matters.
So where is this major legislation that the Chief Minister talked about, and where is the new legislation? There is not much comfort, Madam Speaker, in knowing that the Government considers the introduction of regulations for education and training service providers, a Boxing Control Bill or legislation creating an environment commissioner as matters warranting self-congratulation. They pat themselves on the back because they say that they are going to bring down this kind of legislation. The community is entitled to ask whether these Bills will improve the quality of life of the average man or woman in the street. Will they improve the educational opportunities for our young people? Will the Canberra economy be larger or more diverse? Will there be more jobs - except for jobs for the boys, that is?
The only legislation foreshadowed in the program that is likely to do any of the things that I just mentioned is the proposal to end age discrimination. I would be excused, I am sure, for suggesting that the Government's haste on this issue is due solely to the fact that I had issued drafting instructions for the preparation of such a Bill only a few short weeks before they suddenly found that it was so urgent. I am happy to give the Government a lead in such matters, but I would much prefer to have them develop their own ideas, rather than plagiarising those of the Opposition - if that is not such an impossible task to ask of them.
Mrs Carnell: It was such a good idea.
MR KAINE: Of course, but there have been seven or eight good ideas from the Opposition in the last year, and the Government has plagiarised every one of them. As soon as we put in drafting instructions for legislation, suddenly out pops a piece of government legislation dealing with the same issue. As I said, I do not mind them feeding off our ideas, but I would be much happier if they had a few ideas of their own, because that is what the government program said that they ought to be about.
Madam Speaker, the Government gives notice of its hope that the Adoption Bill will pass this year. The Opposition is similarly hopeful. I hope that we also will get it right this time. It is a pity that the Government did not approach this Bill in a more consultative way in 1992 and present it earlier, because it could have been passed last year, and passed after the Assembly had had the opportunity to scrutinise it fully. The Government's tardiness on this issue, as on many others, has caused inconvenience to members of the community. In fact, there have been some heightened temperatures on the part of some people. I expect that the committee's report, when it is brought down tomorrow, will raise issues of substance that will justify the additional scrutiny that was required by this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .