Page 4042 - Week 13 - Thursday, 10 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries wrote a dissenting report that was very high on rhetoric and very low on fact. As a general observation, Mr Humphries presents as arguments many of the matters that the committee has outlined in the report as advantages and disadvantages. We presented them as advantages and disadvantages so that people could see the possible advantages and disadvantages of CIR. They are not conclusions of the committee at all. The conclusions of the committee are in the recommendations.
Mr Humphries fails to address all the nuts and bolts issues, such as thresholds, signature checking and costs. He ignores the evidence of the Electoral Commissioner. He accuses the committee's majority of using the legal opinion as an excuse to put off the issue until after the election, when, in fact, the legal opinion raises general concerns about the workability of CIR, in general, and the Carnell Bill, specifically. (Extension of time granted) Mr Humphries suggests, in his dissenting report, that there are no submissions that expressly argue against CIR. Of course there are not; essentially, the idea is a very good idea. It is important to understand, Madam Speaker - and I draw your attention to the fact that, on the concluding date, we had eight submissions - that, because I wanted to do this inquiry properly, when I went on television and on radio I had papers in front of me, and I said, "This is the number of submissions we have - eight submissions". I am sure that some members saw that. I was suggesting that we needed more submissions. That process worked. It brought in over 20 submissions, with one more last night.
Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that many of those submissions came from outside the ACT. A handful came from MLAs, or potential Liberal Party MLAs, and the Electoral Commission. Then there were those that simply voiced or expressed an opinion; and they are very valid. They were a page of saying, "Yes, this is a good idea".
Mr De Domenico: So what?
MR MOORE: Mr De Domenico interjects, "So what?". What we were left with was two or three submissions that were substantive, beyond those that I have identified.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Members of the Opposition will have their turn soon.
MR MOORE: The reason that I raise the issue like this, Madam Speaker, is that on many occasions Mr De Domenico has said to me - and the euthanasia debate was a good example - "Where is the community concern for this?". "Why are we doing this?", Mr Kaine would have said a dozen times, I imagine. Mr De Domenico said, on euthanasia, "Why? What are the community concerns?". In that case, where they were wondering where the requirement from the community was, there were over 200 submissions - probably more submissions than any other committee of the Assembly has received.
Mr Humphries: That is the exception.
MR MOORE: Mr Humphries says, "That is the exception". What I am saying is this: If you are going to use those arguments one time, you ought to be consistent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .