Page 2309 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
whilst they may not disagree with the content of the Bill, have sought a delay in its progress. I believe that that is a perfectly responsible view to take. I do not believe that this Assembly should be dragooned into passing this Bill today simply to placate and to support a commitment made by the Chief Minister that this would be introduced on 1 July 1994. That is an irresponsible approach for any member of this Assembly to take, and I believe that it is particularly irresponsible for the Independents who, after all, hold the balance of power in this place. I can well imagine the clones of the Government falling in behind the Chief Minister, but the rest of us certainly do not have to be so stupid.
MR STEVENSON (10.52): This legislation is important. We all understand that. It covers over 200 pages and has hundreds of clauses. It is difficult legislation. It involved a great deal of consultation with a large number of groups, and it will have a great impact on how things operate in the ACT public service and therefore how they operate in the ACT. To call for an adjournment of this matter is a sound move.
Let us look at some of the reasons why. Mr Moore mentioned that there were two good reasons - himself, standing up, and Ms Szuty, sitting down. I think it is well known that I have never thought that numbers are good reasons for anything. The numbers may have the power, but they are never a reason for something. There are many cases around the world of debates being won but the numbers do not allow that view to be heard. It would be far better if we had debating adjudicators in this Assembly and adjudications were made at the end of the debates. I think we would find some interesting situations.
Let us look at some reasons that have not been raised as to why the matter should be adjourned. I suppose the major reason is that there are so many groups within the public service who are concerned about the legislation and feel that there are problems. That, obviously, is the first major reason. The suggestion that things have been patched up over the last few days and that what was said on radio this morning was not really a problem is not sound. I do not think anybody else genuinely thinks it is either.
We all understand that the Chief Minister said that the legislation was unchangeable. We should allow latitude in interpreting the definitions of words. "Unchangeable" does not mean that something cannot be changed, and it should not mean that. It means that things will be changed as necessary. Let us look at some of the changes. We were given what was termed to be 109 changes, but only about 87 are listed, according to the numbering. I think that the others are within the list but are not numbered consecutively. One would have assumed after all those that everything was fine; that the Bill now, with the amendments, is unchangeable. As we know - as Mr Lamont pointed out at the meeting on Monday morning, two days ago - the Bill was changed and we were given more amendments. There were more amendments tabled. No doubt, they would be unchangeable. But, just before I left my office to come downstairs to the Assembly, I was given some more amendments. I had to read them in detail to work out where they were from because they are headed "Listed amendments ACTEW". It sets out the Government position and the Opposition position, and it has Government and Opposition amendments. I am not sure whose amendments they are.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .