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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1601 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

It is a process that I have used myself in the previous seven or eight budgets in this Assembly. Mr Kaine, you will remember that I was very critical of a number of issues that you raised as budget matters in your budgets when you were Chief Minister. I am sure Mr Wood and Mr Berry would remember similar situations when they were Ministers in a Labor government. I believe that the Government has bent over backwards to respond positively to the Estimates Committee where it could. But, in the end, the Government has clear-cut responsibility for managing the money within the community. That is our role. That is why we, as a Cabinet, have taken hard decisions on this and it is why we will continue with those decisions. I think it is a responsive approach to the select committee, in as far as we possibly could, but there are still issues that we have to take responsibility for, which we are doing and will continue to do.

Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries) adjourned.

Motion (by Mr Humphries, by leave) agreed to:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for consideration immediately after the resolution of any question relating to the conclusion of consideration of order of the day No. 3, Executive business, relating to the Appropriation Bill 1998-99.

MR OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, I present Scrutiny Report No. 7 of 1998 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety performing the duties of a scrutiny of Bills and subordinate legislation committee. I ask for leave to make a brief statement on the report.

Leave granted.

MR OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, I wish to clarify one point. I do not want to pre-empt any future debates, but since the Health Regulation (Abortions) Bill was tabled a number of members of this place have said on TV and elsewhere that the Bill is flawed. The impression they have been giving is that it is flawed from a drafting perspective. Mr Speaker, as I said, I do not wish to pre-empt the debate, but the issue was raised and the question was asked of our legal adviser today whether, from his perspective, the Bill was flawed. His response, basically, was no; there are one or two minor areas that need to be clarified but, from his perspective, from the scrutiny of Bills committee's perspective, the Bill was not flawed.

Mr Speaker, as with most Bills, if you do not agree with them, they are certainly flawed. I would ask, from the perspective of the drafter, that when members speak about this Bill they get the message across that it is flawed because they do not agree with it, not because it has been badly drafted. When people are looking for excuses not to back the Bill, the fact that the Bill is flawed is not one of them. I commend the report to the Assembly, Mr Speaker.

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