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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2737 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

areas where they may impact on their lives. We do owe it to people to try to take off legislation which is no longer relevant, and which may in fact impose on them a burden of some kind, at the same time as we put legislation on. That is one of the reasons why there is less on the program.

Another reason that, apparently, on some days we have less to do than we might have had in the past is that there have been some changes in tactics by others in the Assembly as well. For example, today we had a matter of public importance on the program. I must say that it is a real matter of public importance, unlike some I have seen in recent months. Matters of public importance are almost non-existent these days. They were very widely used in the previous Assembly, but today they are seen as somehow padding the program for the Government or something. I do not know why they are not used so much, but they certainly have not been used very much in the last year-and-a-half.

Mr Moore: We are outcome focused.

MR HUMPHRIES: Maybe so. That is why you cannot look at merely the volume of legislation and the volume of work, rather than what the outcome is.

Another reason is that many of the things that are tabled before this Assembly seem to attract immediate debate rather than adjournment for more thoughtful consideration. My impression is that many of the ministerial statements and papers that are tabled tend to get debated straightaway or are simply put and passed, rather than adjourned as they might have been in the previous Assembly. That is my impression at least; I have not done an exhaustive study on the subject. As I said, I do not believe that the volume of material that we put on the floor of this chamber is the important indicator; it is the quality of the outcomes.

Ms Follett: You have just spent 10 minutes talking about it, Gary.

MR HUMPHRIES: I am sorry to have kept you from whatever you were going to do, Ms Follett. I am sorry to have distracted you from having a cup of tea or whatever you were going to go and do, but that is my opinion. I simply put the view on the table. I am glad you interjected, Ms Follett. I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that, had this motion been put two years ago and you were still sitting over here, you would not have supported it in a million years, but I suspect that you are going to do so today. That says a lot about the prospects that these people opposite see for themselves of next being in government.

Mr Moore: That is how they used to argue with you, Gary.

MR HUMPHRIES: Maybe so; but I am sure I did not reject the argument if it was ever put to me, because it is a very powerful and persuasive argument.

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