Page 3929 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 9 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Why would these groups need time? First of all, they would need time to find out about the proposed law. This is particularly difficult if there is little media coverage of the issue. Mr Moore mentioned at one time that there were not the number of submissions to the citizens-initiated referenda committee that one might have expected. But I can assure members in this Assembly that there are vast numbers of people in Canberra who have no understanding whatsoever that there was ever such a committee set up or that it will be reporting tomorrow. I can well understand why. It is very difficult to get the message out with a couple of notices in the paper, particularly the way they are written. I would write them with large five- to 12-word headings that could be spotted easily. But not everybody reads legislative proposals. They look a bit dry. I am not saying that that is a problem; it is just a difficulty.
The same principle holds with legislation. Once an organisation or an individual finds out about a proposed law, if they are part of a group, the fairly logical thing would be to bring it up at the next group meeting. If we rush the legislation through, are we to tell them that they have to hold emergency meetings? If we intended to rush it through, that would be the case. We would have to say, "You have to go out and hold an emergency meeting. We are not giving you time to bring it up at your next monthly organisation meeting". This can take some time, of course.
What can also take some time is the study of the Bill. There are very few people that can do an effective, detailed study of legislation. I suggest that even some members of parliament in Australia would have the same difficulty. I know that members of the drafting section - I am not talking about this Assembly - when questioned about particular clauses within the legislation that they drafted, did not know themselves what it meant. So, it would not be unusual with some legislation for some members not to be sure what it means. To suggest that the community should be certain of that is perhaps unreasonable. So, if an organisation does not have the money to pay a professional to do an analysis of legislation, which may cover dozens of pages, they have to rely on the goodwill of someone that is professionally qualified to do that analysis. It may well be very difficult to get a person to do that, particularly to do it in a hurry. We need to allow people the time to do these things.
Next, the person or the group may want to write to members of parliament about their concerns, with questions about the proposals and with suggestions for amendments, if they have had time to have any written. When people write to us, we do not always get a letter off in reply the same night. It may take some weeks. It is fairly standard that it may take some weeks. People may hold meetings to decide what to do. They may need to gather information and then to hold another meeting to discuss exactly what they will do. They may wish to hold a public meeting or public meetings. They may wish to raise the matter in the media. They may wish to produce and distribute pamphlets and leaflets. All these things take a considerable time. My suggestion is that we allow a minimum of 60 days unless the Assembly agrees that the matter is urgent or is a minor administrative matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .