Page 1042 - Week 04 - Thursday, 18 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
expect to carry the burden of these increases? How much does the Government intend to borrow? What are its longer-term proposals to get it right beyond the coming fiscal year? The community does not expect to be kept in the dark, to be told, "We will not pre-empt the budget".
This Government claims to be consultative, and Ms Follett said in her speech only the day before yesterday:
It is now time to start a wider consultative process, reaching out to the whole community. The community must have a say in our planning for the future.
I totally agree. They are fine words. But consultation is a two-way street. Before the community can make realistic inputs it must know the facts of the situation and it must have the benefit of the Government's evaluation of the situation. Behind-closed-doors consultation will not do it. Expecting productive input from an uninformed community will not do it. If it is true, Ms Follett, that you and your Government have not yet fully considered all options open to you to deal with our budgetary situation, and you indicated last Friday that you had not, then I submit that you are derelict in your duty.
Ms Follett, you have defined the problem - that is what your budget statement is about - but not the solutions. It is your task to define and publicise your solutions. I challenge you to tell the community the facts. Tell them what you intend to do to deal with the problems you have defined. They should not have to perform a surgical operation to extract information from you concerning their money. In the end, they are going to have to carry the costs of your decisions, whether they are good or bad.
Debate (on motion by Mrs Carnell) adjourned.
DOG CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Debate resumed from 16 June 1992, on motion by Mr Wood:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR WESTENDE (4.07): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is interesting that hot on the heels of the Animal Welfare Bill comes another Bill on which there has been even less time for consultation. What is it about these Bills to do with animals? Does the Government assume that everything it does in this area has the support of the community? Does the Government assume that because a certain piece of legislation satisfies one area of the community, in this case the organised dog clubs, it is okay with everybody else? Does this Government assume that because the Bill is of a minor nature it does not need consultation or sufficient time for the Opposition to consider it?
This Bill was presented in the Assembly by the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning on Tuesday of this week - the day before yesterday. The ink is hardly dry. I think that as a general practice a minimum of a week should always be allowed for consideration of new Bills. It concerns me that this Government brags about its consultation with the community, but when it comes down to it this is probably their greatest deficiency. Consultation, for this Government, is talking to those who agree with it. The rest do not get a hearing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .