Page 4745 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 7 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is an interesting point. It is true. It continues:
This may be considered too frequent.
By whom? What sort of a political statement is that? That is not an unbiased statement by a person commenting on electoral considerations. Then it says:
Depending on the complexity of the proposed changes, a limit of 200 words on such a description may impose an impossible obligation.
It is 100 under the Liberal Bill. But we give a discretion if the commissioner considers it appropriate to increase it. Supposedly, this is yet another problem that is dragged up as to why the Bill is not any good.
Let me mention the nub of the Electoral Commissioner's submission. About nine months ago, or more, I heard that the relevant person had concerns about the Bill. I said, "If you have concerns, tell me. I will look at them - just as I did with the Scrutiny of Bills Committee - and, if necessary, we will change them". Let me tell you what sort of an independent response we got. The response was "No, I will not tell you what my concerns are". That is nice. That is not a political statement - not much it is not!
The point is that the EIR Bill is said by the Chief Minister to be fatally flawed. I agree. It is, because it works; and it returns power to the people. When you get in amongst politicians, anything that truly returns power to the people is fatally flawed. There is not much doubt about that. If there had been problems with the EIR Bill - let us say that there had been problems - what is wrong with some amendments? Does it not depend on whether or not you support the people and their right to have a say about what happens to their lives and the lives of their families and what happens in their communities? Is not that the bottom line? What is the intention - to help support the people and encourage democracy, or to prevent it?
MS SZUTY (5.53): Madam Speaker, I would actually like to speak briefly to the report of the Select Committee on Community Initiated Referendums. I would like to refer back to my initial comments on 14 September, when I moved the motion to establish that committee and to specify its terms of reference. At that time I noted that the Assembly was once again considering landmark legislation, as it had in cases such as prostitution, euthanasia and the establishment of smoke-free areas in enclosed public places. I went on to say that it was appropriate in the case of community-initiated referendums, as it had been in the three cases that I referred to, for the proposal to be referred to a committee for further consideration. I also said that referral of issues such as these to Assembly committees is a worthwhile process from which much can be achieved.
Madam Speaker, having considered the committee's report, I must say that I believe that much has been achieved in this case; despite the dissenting comments made by the committee's Liberal Party member, Mr Humphries, on this occasion. The recommendations in the report seem to me to be sensible and in accord with the potential impact on the ACT of the legislation that was being considered. In particular,
the committee's first recommendation makes good sense; namely, that the Assembly
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .