Page 3930 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 9 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The next thing that comes up is: What about the members of this Assembly? Do we need time? I suggest that it would be an excellent idea if the members of parliament - not just in this Assembly but in all parliaments in Australia - actually read the legislation. We can understand why that is not done and why it is not possible. It may not be done by all members of a party or group because they feel that the one member of their group that is looking after it has done all the work. It would be great if we had the time to read all legislation before we individually voted on it. Another reason why it might not happen is that legislation is being put through too fast for members to read it - not just peruse it or get a fair idea about it, but actually read the legislation in detail - and, if need be, gain legal advice as to what certain sections of the proposed legislation mean. The member or the group may then want to locate and contact affected groups. I have done this many times. You do not always know exactly who they are. You have to go out and find out who would be concerned with a particular proposal. It is not easy.
We might also want to take up the Government's valuable offer of departmental briefings, such as those that have been offered by the Labor Party in this Assembly. We might want to hold meetings with other MLAs. That is not always easy to arrange. It may take some time. It may be very difficult because of the time parameters we have. We may want to get amendments drafted. We understand how long it can take to get amendments drafted in the drafting section. We may also want to organise public meetings and produce and distribute information.
So, what I would say, in summary, is that we must understand that we do not have a house of review in the ACT and that we need to allow time as a vital part of consultation. The proposal I put forward has two distinct sections. One is that a minimum period of 60 days be allowed. The other is that, if you did not agree with the first one you could still agree that we have, firstly, 14 days and then a second reading. I think that would be of benefit to all members and parties in this Assembly as well as to the people of Canberra as a whole. I make the point once again that, if matters are of an urgent or minor administrative nature, the Assembly can simply agree with them and they can be passed immediately or at any time we choose.
MR BERRY (Manager of Government Business) (12.16): Madam Speaker, the most interesting thing that arose from that speech was Mr Stevenson's mention of a house of review and the trouble we have through not having one. It immediately conjured up in my mind a picture of a similar arrangement in this building, with a vacuum tube whereby we sent all of the information upstairs, and at some point in the future Mr Stevenson being a life peer in the new Assembly. I wonder what the uniform would be. It could be a Drizabone and an Akubra. I know that he is not seriously proposing a house of review; but it did conjure up that image of how Mr Stevenson would sit in it, how he would be appointed and how he would still be working, unsuccessfully, to abolish self-government.
Mr Stevenson: I would think of a way; make no mistake.
MR BERRY: You have thought of a way to do it unsuccessfully. Madam Speaker, I ave had some discussions with Mr Stevenson about this issue. From the Government's point of view, we think that what he is proposing would constrain the business of government. It would also constrain the business of the Assembly to some extent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .