Page 3387 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
for 70 years, until 1963, when at the instigation of Mr Don Dunstan it was removed. Why was it removed? The predominant suggestion was that the people of Australia would not have the ability to understand the legislation introduced by the Labor Party and might vote against it for that and other reasons. I do not think many Canberrans believe that that is a problem.
In Queensland in 1919, after many years of support, the principle was introduced before the parliament in legislative form. T.J. Ryan, the Labor leader, and the Labor members supported it strongly. If it had not been for Ted Theodore being elected at the following election, I believe that it would have been instituted. From 1936, at least at local government, local council, level in Queensland, we have had the right of citizens to call a referendum. In Burnie in Tasmania, and in North Sydney, pioneered by Ted Mack, citizens at local government, local council, level have the right to call binding referenda. The Liberal Party have taken it on federally, the Democrats have supported it for 15 years, and most other political parties in Australia support it. This legislation will enhance democracy. It will restore faith in our political process. I call on every single member here to support this principle on behalf of all Canberrans and to introduce, for the first time at State or Federal level, this right.
Mr Berry: Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think standing order 170 may apply to this Bill. Mr Stevenson's Bill has explanatory notes, as I understand it, including a summary in the form of a flow chart. The way in which the Bill has been presented makes it clear that these notes form part of the proposed law. It is not clear what legal effect the Bill might have with some of these notes included. I ask that you examine the Bill and rule whether it is prepared in accordance with standing orders and, if not, that it should be withdrawn under standing order 170.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Berry, I will take that point of order on notice. I will allow the Bill to proceed for the time being and rule on the point of order at the next sitting.
Debate (on motion by Ms Follett) adjourned.
DOG CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1993
Debate resumed from 16 June 1993, on motion by Mr Westende:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MS SZUTY (11.03): I intend to speak very briefly to Mr Westende's Bill. I commend Mr Westende for the work he has done in examining the issue of dangerous dogs. His work builds on the work I did some months ago on the question of attacking dogs and takes the issue that next step. I also commend the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning for the work he has done in drafting a series of extensive amendments to Mr Westende's Bill, which have resulted in what I believe is a comprehensive review of these provisions. These amendments have been circulated to members this morning. It is appropriate that Mr Westende's work on dangerous dogs has come to the Assembly at this time, and we are aware that further amendments will be proposed by the Minister once his review of the work done by the working party on dogs has been completed. Madam Speaker, I support the thrust of Mr Westende's Bill and also the Minister's amendments, and I urge the Assembly to support them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .