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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4785 ..

Mr Humphries: We have taken a bit of time already, Michael.

MR MOORE: Mr Humphries interjects that he has taken a bit of time. Yes, but not to the satisfaction, clearly, as is the indication now, of the Assembly. When we are dealing with such important issues as this one, where people put in so much time and effort and take so much risk for our community, I think it is appropriate that we deal with it carefully. Mr Speaker, I, too, will be supporting Mr Osborne's motion.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.04): I seek leave to move an amendment.

Leave granted.

MR HUMPHRIES: I move:

Omit "the first sitting day in May 1997", substitute "the first sitting day in February 1997".

Mr Moore: A great consultation that will be! Over Christmas and in January people can pop in. "What are you doing on Christmas Day?". "I am appearing before a committee".

MR HUMPHRIES: I am concerned about the decision this Assembly proposes to take today. I can see that members are prepared to support this referral, but I want to emphasise that there has been an extensive process of discussion and consultation about these matters. What has happened, though, is that some people have not been brought along in that process because, as I indicated in my remarks earlier, they chose not to take part in the process. If the process has not resulted in agreement, it is hardly the Government's fault. We are not in the business of dragging people to meetings, tying them to chairs and forcing them to tell us what their views are. In this case, that would be the only alternative, I think - to get a set of people around the table to conclude the discussion on those issues.

I think the Assembly is marching to the tune of a small minority of people within this debate who happen to think this is the wrong way to go. I also think it is a dangerous course of action because of the changes already put in place. I am singularly unclear about the Labor Party's position. Ms Follett, particularly, says she does not wish any structural change to be held up for this process. But the second part of this motion says:

no structural changes are implemented until such time as the report is presented to the Assembly.

I am not sure whether or not Ms Follett supports the second half of this motion. If this motion is passed as it stands now, the changes that are already partly in place would have to have a halt put to them and we would be forced, presumably, to go back to the status quo of a few months ago. Some brigades are partly in the process of amalgamation at the moment. I am not sure exactly what it is suggested by the Assembly that we should do. Do we allow those that are partly amalgamated to stay amalgamated?

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