Page 3927 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 9 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, let me mention briefly what the motion does. First of all, I made the amendment to make sure that the current legislation before the house - any legislation tabled this week - would not be affected. The motion would come into force on the last day of our sitting and be valid from the first session next year. Secondly, there are two distinct sections of this motion. The first says that, when a member stands in this Assembly and tables a Bill, after his speech it would be noted. After a minimum of 14 days, the matter would again be brought up in the Assembly. Perhaps you could call it a second reading speech. At that time, members would not need to vote for or against the Bill. They could introduce amendments, present viewpoints from people in the community and ask questions of the proposer of the legislation. There have been many times in the Assembly when this would have been valuable. On the last day, when a matter is brought on for debate, it can be quite difficult, sometimes with dozens of amendments, for members to work out how they relate to each other.
The other part of the motion says that there is a requirement for a minimum of 60 days before any legislation can pass through the Assembly. There are many reasons for that. Perhaps the main one is that we do not have a house of review in this legislature. That is a very useful situation in parliaments in general for people to be held accountable. Another point is that time is a vital ingredient of consultation. If we are to consult, obviously we must allow time to consult. I make the point that many Bills are not easy to understand. Let me just read from one of our laws that we passed in this Assembly. In subsection 50(2), it states:
Without limiting the generality of section 44, the Court may, on the application of a person who has suffered, or is likely to suffer, loss or damage by conduct of another person that was engaged in in contravention of a provision of Part II or on the application of the Director in accordance with subsection (3) on behalf of such a person or 2 or more such persons, make such order or orders as the Court thinks appropriate against the person who engaged in the conduct or a person who was involved in the contravention (including all or any of the others mentioned in subsection (7)) if the Court considers that the order or orders concerned will compensate the person who made the application, or the person or any of the persons on whose behalf the application was made, in whole or in part for the loss or damage, or will prevent or reduce the loss or damage suffered, or likely to be suffered, by such a person.
That was one sentence from the Fair Trading Act. I suggest that 164-word sentences are not all that easy to understand. It is quite often difficult to write legislation without rolling it on into long sentences. What I am saying here is that, if we allow more time for consultation, all of us will benefit by being able to understand the legislation. When we understand it better, it is likely that we will be able to introduce better legislation that will serve the people of Canberra more optimally.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .