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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 238 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

regularly report to the Assembly on this process. Mr Speaker, this Government is not in the business of creating cynical quick fixes. We will now carefully develop further options as, yet again, we get on with the job of consulting while those opposite just discuss maybe theoretical possibilities or, alternatively, as usual, just oppose.

MR MOORE (3.33): Mr Speaker, I have had time to scan both the tabling statement that Mrs Carnell has just delivered, which is just a bit of junk, which says, "This is what we do. We are wonderful" - it does not have much value at all - and the Government's response to the report on addresses to the Assembly. Mr Speaker, one would have thought that, in the Government's response, since they were going to disagree so strongly with the committee's report, they would have at least dealt with some of the issues that the Assembly raised as to why we believed that it was inappropriate. But, no; instead of doing that, they have just done a bit of blustering. One of the normal tricks of this Government is to just bluster their way through and see what happens. They have blustered away because they have a silly policy, which they went to the last election with, that says, "We will let people address the Assembly".

What about the issue that the committee raised, for example, about who will actually address the Assembly? How many people a year will do it, and how do we sort that out? I think this is a fundamental question that has not been answered in this pathetic response to a very sensible committee report. Just think about it. Let us say that we decide that we are going to have it because the Government is so keen on it. Let us say that we agree with the Government and they say, "We are going to have people come to the bar of the Assembly and address the Assembly". How are we going to select which particular people come and address the Assembly, and how would that really enhance it?

Mr Humphries: How do committees do it at the moment?

MR MOORE: How do the committees do it? I am glad that Mr Humphries interjected, because it gives me the opportunity to show him how ridiculous this concept is. The committees are very open in allowing almost anybody who ever asks to appear before them to come before them. The suggestion in the motion, as you may recall, Mr Humphries - if I remember correctly, it is your motion - is for once every second sitting week. Am I correct?

Mr Humphries: Yes, once every second week.

MR MOORE: In other words, once every sitting period, roughly - once every second week that we are sitting. We sit for about 14 weeks a year. So, they would come in seven times. The best we will get is seven times a year. In other words, the best we will get is seven people managing to come before the Assembly. What kind of community input is this? It will become those who can and those who cannot. The other question that was raised by the Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure was: How will that affect the view taken of the committee process, which is currently our consultative process with the community? Why would one want to appear before the committee? People would say, "I do not want to appear before the committee; I want to tell the Assembly as a whole". It would undermine the processes of the committees.

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