Page 2936 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
going to hear the comment, possibly from the community and certainly from the Government, "What are we doing by rushing this legislation through in the dying days of the Assembly?". There would be some justification for that criticism.
Madam Speaker, the question before us is one which has been amply discussed and resolved on countless occasions in this community. I think that people have a reasonably clear idea of what CIR is all about. The mechanism certainly deserves some consideration by members. We have taken the time and the trouble to talk about this issue at great length, particularly before the Bill itself was introduced in this place by Mrs Carnell. So members could hardly claim to be surprised to see the Bill when it first appeared. Of course, Mr Stevenson's raising of the issue predates that by up to a year. Members should hardly be in the position of saying, "We do not know anything about this" or "This is all a surprise to us. We had better start looking at citizens-initiated referenda". The fact is that there have been many opportunities for that. I do not think that we are going to advance the arguments very well, or be seen to be advancing them very well, by trying to rush through a half-baked inquiry in the next few weeks. Madam Speaker, I realise that the numbers are here to pass this motion; but, by the same token, I think it would be a foolish step to take at today's meeting of the Assembly.
MR BERRY (Manager of Government Business) (4.23): What surprises me most about the Liberals' approach is their refusal to submit this matter to the normal Assembly processes and community scrutiny of and access to those processes. We have just had to tolerate an hour of grizzling and groaning from that lot opposite about the issue of the Labor Government's community consultation strategy. They grizzled and groaned and heaved and moaned about the issue of consultation; but I have to say that I did not see the Bill put forward by Mrs Carnell being accompanied by a massive petition of 20,000 voters demanding citizens-initiated referenda. Of course, that never happened. So, from my point of view and from the Labor Party's point of view, it is a reasonable approach for the matter to go to the committee.
How dare the Liberals accuse everybody, and certainly the Labor Party, of not consulting, given their approach to this particular piece of legislation! I think they ought to be ashamed of themselves. I trust that the media will pick up this flip-flop. Mrs Carnell is very good at the old somersault, pike and flip-flop. She is not even awarded a degree of difficulty for it because it is so easy for her. This is an issue that ought to be looked at by the community. There ought to be a bit more consultation about it. There ought to be a closer look at it. Labor will be supporting the motion which has been moved by Ms Szuty.
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition) (4.25): Madam Speaker, no sensible reason has yet been advanced for referring the Community Referendum Bill and Mr Stevenson's Bill to a committee. To do so would be simply ludicrous. The terms of reference bear this out. For example, it is totally inappropriate for a committee to be looking at the political context and the rationale for this sort of process. That has to be an issue for the Assembly, not for a committee. If we are talking about backflips, I think that we should be looking at Mr Moore and Ms Szuty. It is very unfortunate that we have seen that happen. Mr Moore used to say that he supported community referendums. In August 1991 he called for six issues to be put to referendum at the next election.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .