Page 2948 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore and I have had a couple of discussions in that time. I have noted that it has taken a very long while for the Bill to come to its final stage and to be tabled in the Assembly. If it had arrived for our consideration earlier, we might not be having this debate today and the decision to refer the Bill automatically to a committee might have been made some months ago.
Let me pick up Mr Berry's comment. Mr Berry contrasted the proposal to refer the Community Referendum Bill to a committee with the matter of public importance debate which we have held today in this chamber, where the Liberals argued very strongly for full and effective community consultation. I agree that there is some irony in the two stances that have been taken by the Liberal Party in the Assembly today on these two issues.
I would like to spend some time addressing Mrs Carnell's comments. I did note that Mrs Carnell was not in the chamber when I spoke to the motion in the first instance. Perhaps that is why she did not see any sensible reason for referring her Bill and Mr Stevenson's Bill to a committee. She noted that I supported the Bill in principle, and I do. I firmly believe that there is time for the committee to do its job and to report to the Assembly by 18 November. While I support the Bill in principle, other members of this Assembly have not yet indicated their position. I think it is important, for their benefit, that the time is taken to address adequately the very fundamental issues which are involved in assessing the merits of citizens-initiated referendum proposals.
Let me turn to the committee process. I do not believe that the experience of this Assembly suggests that issues become buried once they are referred to committees. In fact, I think that the opposite is the case. We have a very well-regarded committee system in this Assembly which does a very effective job. Mrs Carnell said that there are other jurisdictions watching us in the ACT to see what we do with citizens-initiated referenda. I would say that that is all the more reason for the ACT to get the process right, if that is what we ultimately decide to do. Mr Stevenson mentioned the very many people with whom he has been in touch who are concerned about the potential delay in the Bills coming on for debate. I understand the position of people who have come to a decision on these matters. They do become frustrated with other people in the Assembly and with other people in the community who want to take more time over those particular issues.
Mr Stevenson talked about consultation from his perspective. That has already been extensively done, according to Mr Stevenson. But this is certainly not the case for other members of the Assembly, in particular Mr Moore, who has indicated that he wants to consider the issue much more fully than he has been able to do to date. Mr Stevenson said that people should have a say. In fact, the Canberra community should have a say in looking at citizens-initiated referenda through the committee process. Mr Stevenson also mentioned a discussion which he had with me some time ago. He offered to brief me about the detail of his Electors Initiative and Referendum Bill. At the time, I declined. The reason I declined was that I was anticipating the Liberals' Community Referendum Bill being tabled in the near future. It has since happened. I apologise to Mr Stevenson that his earlier request slipped my mind and I have not been back to him to discuss the issue. That was my reason for rejecting an opportunity to have a discussion with him at an earlier time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .