Page 4039 - Week 13 - Thursday, 10 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (11.48): Madam Speaker, I have to indicate that my party does not see any problem with the tabling of this late submission. Had Professor Burns made the submission three weeks ago, clearly, it would have been part of the papers that Mr Moore is presenting today. Therefore, there appears to be no reason why it should be treated any differently, merely because it is late. I am a little surprised to hear Mr Stevenson say that he is opposed to a submission from a member of the public being tabled. He is normally a great supporter of public participation in these processes. Although we do not want to encourage late submissions of this kind, I see no reason why it should not be made part of the papers which this committee has considered and are on the table.
MR BERRY (Manager of Government Business) (11.49): Madam Speaker, rather than parrot the sum of the views expressed by the Opposition, I merely say that the Government will be supporting the motion which has been moved, because we believe that the papers would have found their way into the process if they had been submitted earlier. It is a mere matter of machinery that can be dealt with quite easily by supporting this motion.
MR MOORE (11.49), in reply: I close the debate, Madam Speaker, by saying that, from my reading of the submission, there are no attacks of the type that Mr Stevenson is talking about.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
MADAM SPEAKER: The question now is: That the report be noted.
MR MOORE (11.51): To begin my speech, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank members of the committee for the time and effort that they put in on this committee report. In fact, they made the effort to ensure that we were able to report early. They recognised that I would be out of the country for a while from tomorrow. I appreciate the efforts of other members of the committee. I would also like to extend my thanks to the committee secretary, Bill Symington; and particularly to the assistant secretary, Chris Papadopoulos, who had not worked on committee work prior to this report and whose assistance has been invaluable. Madam Speaker, it is most important for me to go, first and foremost, through the recommendations and to make it very clear why it is that the committee has not rejected CIR. I quote from the report:
The Committee recommends that the Assembly:
(a) proceed no further with the Electors Initiative and Referendum Bill 1994;
(b) defer consideration of the Community Referendum Bill 1994 until the implications of the Bill on the good governance of the ACT have been fully examined; and
(c) accept, in principle, the establishment of a select committee with terms of reference as outlined in Recommendation 3 to examine and report upon the concept of a CIR process for the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .