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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 2068 ..

MRS CROSS (continuing):

the public. As Mr Hargreaves pointed out this morning, the former Liberal government did indeed table legislation on this matter last year. Because of this, he then assumes- quite wrongly-that we will help the government to rush this legislation through the Assembly today.

Unlike this government, the former Liberal government did not try to rush the legislation on cemeteries through the Assembly. If Labor members cast their minds back to last year, they may recall that former minister Smyth tabled his legislation on 8 March, and it was then debated on 28 August-over five months later. During that debate, some members indicated they had concerns that were yet to be fully addressed-a very similar situation to today.

Instead of forcing the issue, although we had the numbers to do so at the time, what did we do, Mr Speaker? We adjourned the bill. How different from the Labor government 's approach. They introduced this legislation just two weeks ago. Whilst it is similar, this is a different bill from the one tabled under the Liberal government last year. The scrutiny of bills legal adviser raised a number of concerns with this bill. The government provided members with its response to those concerns only yesterday.

I noted Mr Hargreaves' rather scathing comments on the committee process this morning. It was disappointing to hear that he places such little value on Assembly committees. I do not recall him being so underwhelmed by our committees while he was in opposition. I wonder what has changed his mind about that.

Speaking of changes of mind, I also noted Mr Hargreaves' earlier admission that the government has changed its mind about aspects of this legislation now that they are in government. Perhaps I could encourage Ms Dundas about committees and the political process. It is possible for committees to initiate political change, even for parties. I encourage her to place a high value on the committee and process the government is undertaking today. I draw her attention to this extract from the House of Representatives Practice on parliamentary committees:

The ... purpose of parliamentary committees is to perform functions which the Houses themselves are not well fitted to perform, that is, finding out the facts of a case or issue, examining witnesses, sifting evidence, and drawing up reasoned conclusions. Because of their composition and method of procedure, which is structured but generally informal compared with the Houses, committees are well suited to the gathering of evidence from expert groups or individuals. In a sense they 'take Parliament to the people' and allow direct contact between members of the public by representative groups of Members of the House. Not only do committee inquiries enable Members to be better informed about community views but in simply undertaking an inquiry committees may promote public debate on the subject at issue. The all-party composition of most committees and their propensity to operate across party lines are important features. This bipartisan approach generally manifests itself throughout the conduct of inquiries and the drawing up of conclusions.

Mr Speaker, during last year's Assembly debate, it became evident that views differed on an important aspect of cemetery operation-that is, the permanency of post-burial tenure. I understand the Greens wish the public to become informed in debate on this issue and on other issues. I think it would be prudent of the Assembly to encourage such a debate, instead of rushing the bill through today.

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