Page 2751 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (5.11): Madam Speaker, this issue was raised publicly by Ms Szuty, who unfortunately cannot speak just at the moment. We support the notion of establishing a committee. We wanted to look carefully at Mrs Carnell's Bill and carefully prepare the terms of reference. We wanted the inquiry to include not only Mrs Carnell's Bill but also Mr Stevenson's first and second Bills so that we could see what the differences were. We wanted it to include also the Bill that Mr Prowse tabled in the First Assembly. We wanted to look at the issues in full and to ensure that everything was done properly. The issue that we are dealing with is one of fundamental change to the political nature of this area and would be a precedent in Australia. Therefore, this inquiry cannot be done in a half-baked way. That is why I hope that Mr Stevenson will take Mr Berry's advice and withdraw this motion now. Let us do it properly at the next sittings.
MR HUMPHRIES (5.12): Madam Speaker, I also oppose this motion, partly because I cannot even read it. It refers to the admissibility of introducing a law to give, as I read it, "cit the pit". I do not know what that means, Madam Speaker. It also refers to what I think is "EIR(2)94" and "CR94". I do not know what it means, Madam Speaker. I think I can work out the words at the top of the page, which talk basically about Mr Stevenson being on a committee. What a turn-up for the books - Mr Stevenson actually getting onto a committee in the Assembly! This sounds remarkable. A man who has not put in a day's work on an Assembly committee in nearly three years, and who presumably expects to get re-elected in February next year, now fronts up saying, "I insist on a place on a committee". I think it is pretty poor, Madam Speaker. I think this motion is half-baked and should be thrown out.
MR STEVENSON (5.13), in reply: I will take the points in the order in which they were raised. First of all, Mr Berry, I am prepared to withdraw the motion. As I said, it was a draft, and time is limited. However, the more important point is that if there is going to be an inquiry into this matter it should go ahead now rather than in three weeks' time. We heard the expression "half-baked". Time is critical. One can amend this motion. If there is an intention on the part of certain members of the Assembly to fix it up, by all means fix it up. I wanted to avoid waiting for another three weeks. Some people have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours in this area. We cannot expect the committee to do the job correctly in a short period of time. That is something that committees normally do not do. I do not say that it is impossible, but there would need to be a commitment that I have not seen in this Assembly.
Mr Humphries raised the point that I have not been on a committee in this term. That is quite true. Let me make the point that I went on committees in the First Assembly and was blocked by the Liberal Party and blocked by the Labor Party on three committees.
Mr Lamont: The dinosaurs have just about forgotten that one, Dennis. Mr Stefaniak would remember.
MR STEVENSON: Bill would remember well. He was one of the people who voted against it. Mr Lamont can talk, because he was not here at the time and did not vote against it.
Mr Lamont: If I had been here, I would have.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .