Page 4344 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (12.17): I would like to speak briefly to this motion proposed by Mr Stevenson. In fact, I recall speaking to a very similar motion proposed by Mr Stevenson on 16 December 1992. In my remarks on that occasion I indicated that I had already spoken on the matter on several occasions in this Assembly, most particularly during a matter of public importance debate in June, when the issue was raised by Mr Stevenson, and also in the debate on a matter of public importance raised the week before, in December 1992, by Mr Humphries. I suppose that my philosophical position would be that I sympathise with Mr Stevenson to some extent. What he is trying to do is to make sure that this Assembly deals constructively with all the issues that it has before it.
What I do not necessarily agree with is Mr Stevenson's rather prescriptive approach to how this Assembly should deal with all matters which come before it. In fact, Madam Speaker, in my remarks in the debate in 1992 I commented that I thought Mr Stevenson had taken a prescriptive approach to a similar motion that he proposed in 1992. I agree with other members who have spoken in this debate to date that we really need to retain our flexibility in dealing with the pieces of legislation which come before this Assembly. There are many pieces of legislation that this Assembly deals with, and for particular reasons we need to deal with particular pieces of legislation in different ways from time to time. While I have some sympathy for Mr Stevenson's views, Madam Speaker, I will not be supporting his motion, because I believe that it is too prescriptive. I sincerely wish this Assembly to retain the flexibility that it has in dealing with pieces of legislation that come before it.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (12.19): I would like to speak very briefly to this motion, simply to point out that the import of the proposal that Mr Stevenson has put before us is to delay for a quite considerable period the passage of legislation through this Assembly. The proposal that he has put forward says in one part:
The question 'That this bill be agreed to in principle' shall not be determined by the Assembly within 59 days of the day of introduction ...
I would like to compare and contrast that with what has just now occurred on the previous item of private members business. We saw an amendment which was circulated yesterday voted upon today and supported by Mr Stevenson. I find it prima facie an act of the most extraordinary hypocrisy that he can sit here in this chamber barefaced and go on with this sort of motion. It is almost impossible to believe. I believe that Mr Stevenson has shown that he is prepared to go to any lengths to support the Liberals, as always. He is being totally inconsistent on this whole issue. I believe that the position that he has taken here, apart from being inconsistent and hypocritical, is really not supportable. Other than item No. 2 of private members business, when was the last time that any serious matter was rammed through the Assembly in the way that Mr Stevenson, I am sure, will tell us has occurred? The fact is that there was not one. The order of business and the urgency of business are matters that are debated and decided by members in this Assembly. To my memory, it has never been heard of that a matter could simply be rammed through. There is no party within this Assembly that could do it unilaterally, so the proposal from Mr Stevenson is unnecessary, mischievous and totally hypocritical.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .