Page 5108 - Week 17 - Wednesday, 12 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the crossbenches, seek to move amendments to legislation, the Government ought, at least, to give them the respect of dealing with the arguments and explaining the Government position. That was sadly lacking last night and it was a poor reflection on this place.
While in that way supporting Mr Stevenson's matter of public importance, there is the irony that Mr Berry noted of Mr Stevenson, who came into this place on an abolish self-government platform, bemoaning the lack of a safeguard of an upper house in this Territory. It made me wonder whether Mr Stevenson is perhaps favouring the introduction of an upper house for the Territory. Perhaps if we are going to have an upper house, we should go the whole hog and have an hereditary upper house. We could have Lord Stevenson of no fixed abode as the first Lord President of that place. Earlier on, I saw the Minister for Urban Services rather favourably playing with the phrase "Duke Duby". It is a bizarre suggestion, of course, but it is odd that a member who came to this place on the basis of saying that we do not need self-government now claims that we lack a safeguard because we do not have an upper house.
Of course we do not need an upper house. Of course members on this side would think that is ridiculous. But the point remains that in a unicameral system it is important that there be adequate time for consideration. The Government really needs to give very serious consideration to so arranging its legislative program. When it does not have an upper house to blame for delays - which is often justified where upper houses exist - but when, equally, we do not have an upper house to review legislation, it is crucial that the Government be seen to be responding to the wishes of the Assembly and be seen to be giving adequate time for debate on important legislation. This week that does not seem to be the case.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for the discussion has now expired.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
MR STEVENSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, carry on, Mr Stevenson.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Berry made the statement that I was perhaps suggesting that there should be an upper house. The statement of the matter of public importance says, "particularly considering the fact that the ACT does not have the safeguard of the Upper House review". It says "the"; it should have been "an", which is what I put in - "of an Upper House review". That was the statement. That did not say that I believe that there should be an upper house, as was alluded to, falsely, by Mr Connolly and Mr Berry.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .