Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 380 ..

community to input into this Assembly. It is also about having a very obvious way for this Assembly itself to consult via our committee process. We will do everything in our power to ensure that that process has a bigger role in this Assembly. If we achieve those things, I believe that the people of Canberra will believe that they are getting value for their dollar from this Assembly.

MR MOORE (12.22): Mr Speaker, the situation with consultation is very interesting. I have a growing feeling that the way we are using the term “consultation” has more to do with delay and creating problems. In speaking against this motion, I do not deny that many of the ideas that Ms McRae is suggesting are very positive. I think that the Government would do well to take note of some of those ideas. However, if a motion requiring details of consultation should an amendment be moved to legislation were to apply to all members putting up legislation, it would create for me a bureaucratic nightmare.

There are times when consultation on legislation is entirely appropriate and there are times when it is not appropriate. I understand that the last part of Ms McRae's motion recognises that, in asking for an explanation if no consultation took place. Last week I introduced a broadcasting Bill. Part of the reason that no consultation took place is that the Bill is on the table as part of the consultation process. That particular legislation is restricted in its impact to people here in the Assembly and to media people who deal with us all the time.

I suppose that in one sense consultation took place on that Bill, but consultation also takes place after a piece of legislation is tabled in its final form. On occasions there are draft pieces of legislation. It seems to me that, the more restrictions we put on the way we do things, the more public servants we are going to need to meet those requirements. Remember, Mr Speaker, that we are not talking about just the legislation we see before us now; we are also talking about subordinate legislation. Sometimes in this house we have 40 or 50 pieces of subordinate legislation tabled. Under this motion, for each of those 40 or 50 pieces of subordinate legislation there would have to be a six-point plan on the process of consultation followed. One wonders, Mr Speaker, whether this really would give us a more efficient public service.

Ms McRae: They do it elsewhere.

MR MOORE: Ms McRae interjects to say that they do it elsewhere. That may be so. I would have no resistance to the Government doing this as part and parcel of their normal approach. It is interesting that Labor decides that it is a very important thing to do now that they are not in government and they do not have to do it. There is some great irony in that, Mr Speaker, because this is the same party that in government prided themselves on their consultation processes. There were a number of times when the consultation processes were extensive. I can think of a number of Bills that Mr Connolly introduced after a first draft and even a second draft. I think the Bill of Rights Bill may have had a second draft. There was certainly a discussion paper, then a first draft and then some options. There was a whole series of stages. I am not being critical about that consultation that took place. I am critical about setting in place a restrictive mechanism that requires such a process for every piece of legislation.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .