Page 2943 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE (4.49): Madam Speaker, it is interesting that Mrs Carnell should start by accusing me and Ms Szuty of doing backflips and all the other things that she talked about in this debate. In this case, she should look in a mirror. In reality, I have not, at any stage, resiled from any of those things that she has quoted. What I have suggested, and what I do suggest in supporting this very sensible motion of Ms Szuty's, is that we use appropriate Assembly processes. I might remind the Assembly that the Liberal Party has put forward this Bill during an election period, without any reference to the electorate.
Dennis Stevenson certainly did; but in no way was this presented by the Liberal Party during an election period in this Territory. They see it as a "simple" exercise that they can just put through this Assembly. That is the word that Mrs Carnell used on a number of occasions. She said, "It is simple". The same concept was reiterated by Mr Stevenson: Either you agree or you do not; it is black and white. The issue is not black and white at all, and that is why I was comfortable in voting down Mrs Carnell's amendment. Just to emphasise that it is not black and white, let me remind members that there have been five separate CIR Bills presented to the ACT Legislative Assembly in the last four years - one by Mr Prowse, one in the First Assembly by Mr Stevenson, two in this Assembly by Mr Stevenson and one by Mrs Carnell. Yet Mrs Carnell has the gall to stand up before us and say, "Just accept mine. It is okay. Look at it; it is fine. Just adopt it. It is terrific". That is exactly what she said.
Mr De Domenico: Let us debate it, and you can vote against it, if you like.
MR MOORE: Debate it, if you like; but, after having had those five Bills, I think it is appropriate that, as is our usual process, an Assembly committee should look at both Mrs Carnell's Bill and Mr Stevenson's Bill, and also at the background and the principle, because, Mrs Carnell, it is not just black and white and it is not simple. That argument is simplistic. In fact, earlier today, during the debate on the matter of public importance, the Chief Minister quoted Mr Mackerras in his discussion on these matters. It is not a simple view.
Let me emphasise this. I have not changed my position on it. I have expressed support in principle for citizens-initiated referenda. In this house I have also expressed growing doubts about some of the ways it is applied. I did that particularly during the debate on the electoral Bill. The reality is that the normal process of this Assembly is to send difficult legislation to a committee. On this subject that we are talking about, we have had five different Bills. That would indicate that it is a quite complicated matter.
Mr Humphries and Mr Stevenson would argue for the removal of clause 4, which states that the committee shall report by 18 November. Ms Szuty and I agreed to that, and we will see how the others go, because we wanted to see whether we could possibly deal with this matter appropriately within a given timeframe. The irony of all ironies was that, this morning, we heard Liberal member after Liberal member complain, as they do again and again, about the ACT being a social laboratory; yet they said immediately, "Yes, but just put this through. It does not have to go to a committee. Just make sure that we deal with it". If anything would make us a social laboratory, it would be this particular Bill, because it represents a fundamental change to our system of democracy that has not happened in any other State or Territory in Australia. Therefore, it warrants
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .