Page 1679 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Parts 1.18 to 1.22, amendments 1.44 to 1.51, by leave, taken together.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.19), by leave: I move amendments Nos 20 to 24 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 1733].
These amendments omit amendments 1.44 to 1.51 from schedule 1 of the bill. They deal with a range of transitional provisions and amendments to the definition of indictable offences which are now no longer required.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.20): The Greens will be supporting these consequential amendments. As we are coming to the end of the bill, I would also like to take an opportunity to comment on some of the procedural matters around this bill. Mrs Dunne, as the chair of the scrutiny of bills committee, made a statement to this Assembly last July, on 1 July, and she made similar comments in the committee’s report this morning.
I will quote the comments from July last year where she talked about the new trial of amendments coming before the scrutiny of bills committee from non-executive members of the Assembly. She said at the time that amendments should be submitted for the committee’s consideration at least 14 calendar days prior to the date proposed for further consideration of the bill and she went on to note that this is a trial that we should conduct until the end of the Seventh Assembly, which of course is a sensible approach because it is a new way of doing things.
However, when it comes to this bill, there have been two interesting examples where that time line has not been addressed. On 6 April my office was advised by Mrs Dunne that she had written to scrutiny and requested a response prior to debate on 7 April—that is, she had written to scrutiny with her amendments requesting that response. That was a 24-hour turnaround that was proposed for the scrutiny committee and well short of the suggested 14 calendar days.
On 7 April we decided to adjourn debate because there was still some work to be done. I think that was a sensible approach at the time. On 27 April Mrs Dunne again wrote to the scrutiny committee with the close-to-final Liberals’ amendments, leaving one clear working day before the scrutiny committee reported on 29 April. Then on 29 April the scrutiny committee made comments on the Liberals’ amendments.
It is of concern to me and my colleagues in the Greens that the suggested time line is being so blatantly disregarded. Clearly we are in a trial phrase and there is some bedding down to be done of how this process exactly does work and what is an appropriate and practical way for this process to work. On that basis, I simply wanted to express our concerns about this use of the time frame and perhaps offer Mrs Dunne the opportunity to comment on what impact this 24-hour turnaround has had on the scrutiny committee, and particularly its adviser, and to invite some feedback, whether it is today or at another time, on what the appropriate time frame is considered to be. Is it 14 days? Is this short time frame that has been used on this occasion available to all members of the Assembly or is it only available to the chair of the scrutiny committee?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video