Page 4714 - Week 15 - Thursday, 16 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would be surprised if this Bill sparked the sense of urgency that would cause Mr Stevenson to break his 90-day rule. Mr Stevenson has continuously said that Bills need to lie in this place for 60 or 90 days. This Bill is not urgent. It has been around for one day. It was submitted to this house yesterday. It is not urgent and it is half-baked. The matter is going to be dealt with anyway.
MR STEVENSON (12.19): Mr Berry raises a very good point as to how long legislation should lie in this Assembly before being debated. I take his point absolutely. I believe that it should be a minimum of 90 days. Most people in Canberra believe that it should be between 60 and 90 days. It is unfortunate that when I moved to change standing orders to allow a minimum of 60 days Mr Berry voted against my motion, along with all the Liberals who are laughing at the moment and everybody else. It was a 16-1 vote.
However, within my proposed change to the standing orders I did allow for urgent Bills. There obviously are situations - extraordinary, I would agree - where a matter should be heard urgently. The point is: Is this one? First of all, it is a small amendment. It is not an electoral Bill with 188 pages and hundreds and hundreds of clauses. We would certainly not agree with that one being dealt with urgently. The extraordinary event of a Bill passing in one day has happened before in this house, I believe at the instigation of both sides. But the concern of Canberrans would be about whether this unduly affected them.
Mr Berry: No.
MR STEVENSON: Thank you. Mr Berry says no. I do not believe that it does. It would seem that most people affected by the legislation that this Bill seeks to amend are in agreement with it. Indeed, Mr Berry and his Labor colleagues are in agreement with a change being made. What we are talking about here largely is whether we should wait any longer - until next year or for a few more months - before the change is made. I believe under the circumstances that the matter should be debated. That does not mean that the Bill will be passed, but I believe that it is an urgent matter and that it should be debated. Mr Berry has indicated on behalf of the Government that they will introduce a change and that they would have done so this year but because of other pressures have not got around to it. I think the Assembly is beholden to look at the matter now.
Question resolved in the affirmative, with the concurrence of an absolute majority.
LONG SERVICE LEAVE (BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY) (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 2) 1993
Debate resumed from 15 December 1993, on motion by Mr De Domenico:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MADAM SPEAKER: Before we proceed to debate the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Bill (No. 2), I advise members that I have examined the Bill and note that clause 4 is the same in substance as an amendment moved by Mr De Domenico during the detail stage of the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Bill 1993 on 17 June 1993. That amendment was negatived by the Assembly. As you know, standing order 136 states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .