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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2740 ..

Mr Moore: In addition to the Tuesday mornings, I presume you mean.

MR BERRY: In addition. We would be quite happy with that if you find that your timetable is a little cramped.

Mr De Domenico: Just look at how interested the community is in what you are saying.

MR BERRY: Mr De Domenico raises the issue of the interest in the community. I do not think they were given much notice about this, so they could not get their orders in to Ticketek to get into the place. Mr Speaker, we will be supporting this motion. I can give an undertaking to the Government that we will not be standing in the way of their wish to expand proceedings in this place to cope with their own timetable.

Mr Humphries: Will you do this next time you are in government?

MR BERRY: Mr Humphries asks whether we would do this the next time we are in government. Mr Humphries, when we were in government, if somebody had decided that they wanted to do it there was not much we could have done about it. It is as simple as that. Indeed, if this standing order stays on the books in the future, nobody is going to be able to do much about it. The simple fact of the matter is that the electoral system is likely to deal up minority governments, and all of the good and bad things that go with them, for a long way into the future. These standing orders will ebb and flow with the tide. That is the way it is.

The standing orders are pretty well derived from a model of government which is delivered by different sorts of electoral systems, I think. At the same time, we do not withdraw our support for Executive-style government. It is a style of government that has served many nations well for a long time. I do not see any reason why that should change. Indeed, there is no reason why we would try to cramp the style of the Government in relation to extending its timetable if it needs more time to consider its agenda. I restate my position that, if you really want to go back to Tuesday night sittings, we would be most happy to agree with you.

MS TUCKER (5.18), in reply: Thank you, members.

Mr Berry: I hope this is not going to be political.

MS TUCKER: I take Mr Berry's point about the word "political". Actually, I think what I was referring to is the spirit in which people use this particular change - if people really use this time for no particular reason. Likewise, if the Government chose to say, "Why did you ask for this, because you are not using it all?", that equally would not be helpful. The intent of this is to provide a little bit more flexibility because there has been quite a bit of pressure on getting through the work that we want attended to in this place.

I take Mr Humphries's point. I was not implying that you were lazy at all, and I respect the view that we do not necessarily need more legislation, and that quantity is not quality. I accept that and I was not implying otherwise. What I was acknowledging was that there was pressure on private members, and that this would allow more flexibility. I also accept

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