Page 1846 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (10.24): It has been my intention for some little while to get a little card that I could read out at the start of each of these debates and to talk about inadequate or no community consultation, because it happens again and again. Mr Berry mentioned that this Bill has been around since December.
Mr Berry: The first announcement was in December.
MR STEVENSON: "The first announcement", he said. The Bill was tabled on 20 May. The tabling of the Bill is the relevant time. Then, and only then, can people understand what the exact proposal is. You certainly cannot take any notice of what is said in the media at different times about different proposals. Even after a Bill is tabled we can get an amendment very late in the piece that can change it in a major way. People may not even have seen it. That can actually be voted in on the same day. That is something that we need to address in this Assembly.
Mr Berry has been asked, on a number of occasions, why the Government is doing this. What are the supposed benefits of the proposal for ACTTAB? You do not get any indication as to any benefit from speaking to the people involved, because there has not been adequate consultation; but there are concerns being expressed by various groups. Mr Cornwell presented documents that showed conflicting information. Mr Berry asked, "Which document is that?". Mr Cornwell said, "The leaked document". Mr Berry asked, "Was it signed?". I do not know whether that is all that relevant. Is not the only relevant question, "Is it correct?"? If it was not correct, would not the Minister have said, "That is not correct. I have never seen it, have never had anything to do with it, do not know anything about it, and it is all nonsense"? But he did not say that. He said, "Was it signed?". I am not sure of the particular relevance of not signing documents until they are tabled in case they go out the door and people get them. Then you will not be able to say, "Was it signed?". The question I would ask Mr Berry is, "Was it correct?".
Mr Humphries asked a question that was highly relevant: "Is ACTTAB well managed at this time?". There has been no relevant suggestion that it is not. Once again, we get back to the question: "Why make the changes?". There certainly has not been adequate consultation. The committee proposal would allow that consultation. It would not only allow consultation but also allow members of the Assembly to examine the proposals. It would give Mr Berry an opportunity to put forward the various reasons that he has - he must have reasons - for introducing the Bill. So I support Mr De Domenico's motion. I think it will be unfortunate indeed if his motion is not passed. People and groups in this community have every right to have sufficient time to understand proposals that are made in this parliament.
MR DE DOMENICO (10.28), in reply: Madam Speaker, in closing the debate on this motion, I think there is a lot that has been said by previous speakers that needs reflection. Mr Moore made some salient comments. His major concern as to why he would not be supporting referring the Bill to the committee was the possibility of privatisation. That is something that Mr Berry mentioned. Once again, let us talk about this word "privatisation". I will quote what I said, because I have it written down here in front of me. I said, "It was emphasised by the then Chief Minister, Mr Kaine, when he introduced the Bills, that the Territory owned corporations were about corporatisation in the interests of efficiency, not about privatisation". I think, on reflection, I repeated myself. I said "not about privatisation" again.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .