Page 1110 - Week 03 - Thursday, 18 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
motion. I do take up the point that was made by the Chief Minister. This is a fairly benign motion; it is calling on the government to do what is essentially an established practice.
I would rather challenge some of the comments made by the Chief Minister. But, without going back and having a very forensic analysis of the 24 JACS bills that have come in the past, my feeling is that there has been a substantial change under the tutelage of Mr Corbell and I think that it is a change that needs to be nipped in the bud.
I can recall occasions when amendments have been ruled out of order to JACS and SLAB bills because they were not of a routine nature. Ms Tucker wanted to move some amendments—it probably was to a SLAB bill rather than to a JACS bill, because I think it had something to do with gaming machines—and they were ruled out of order because they were of a policy nature and not of a routine fix-up nature.
What we debated today in relation to the ACAT bill was a substantial piece of policy. The fact that we had amendments which were by everyone’s reckoning—on the government and crossbenches—even more substantial policy shows that we have had a substantial departure here. The experience that I have had in the last little while shows that the community is uninformed about the changes the government wants to make. I draw attention to the amendments to the security industry that came up in November-December last year, which were substantial changes to the operation of the security industry, and no-one in the security industry knew about them because there was no security industry amendment bill for them to say, “Hmm, I wonder what the government has in store for us.” The government, of course, did not consult on the matter and there were no markers for a moderately observant member of an industry group to say, “I should be interested in that,” because it was hidden in a justice and community safety amendment bill.
Again, the embarrassing bungling over the appointment of the Official Visitor and others was covered up, or attempted to be covered up, in a justice and community safety bill. They are the standout ones, and then we come to today where a substantial number of the acts amended have substantial policy implications.
I take the point that no family with a troublesome will matter would go to the justice and community safety amendment bill to see what the government is doing about helping them fix up their troublesome will matters—and that is a substantive change.
I thank the Greens for their support. I acknowledge the in-part support of the Chief Minister. I hope that this motion will result in better bills being introduced in this place and where it is necessary to have substantive bills for them to arrive so that members of the community can be aware that changes may be taking place that will affect them.
Ordered that the question be divided.
Paragraph 1(a) agreed to.
Paragraph 1(b) agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video