Page 3932 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 9 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I will leave it there, Madam Speaker, and just confirm that the Government will be opposing the moves by Mr Stevenson in relation to this matter. We accept the principle that we need to consult with the community. I think we give adequate time to do that. We also accept that members who wish to consult with the committee can, in most circumstances, arrange to delay passage of particular legislation if that is their choice. I think that people from all sides have had a go on that score in the past, and there has never been any stiff resistance to it unless it has been something extremely important to the Government. Then it has to weigh up the numbers and see whether it can put it through the chamber in any event. As I said, we are in sympathy with the principle; but I think it is dealt with well enough in the Assembly in the flexible processes that we have available to us.
MR CORNWELL (12.23): Madam Speaker, the proposal put up by Mr Stevenson is certainly interesting. It is in three parts. As far as I am concerned, the minimum requirement of 14 days which he put in the first section to amend standing order 171 is quite all right. In fact, we practise that now. If we do not do it formally, it is the way that it works out, simply by the volume of work that comes through. Naturally, a Bill has to be adjourned after it is introduced. There are some procedures already in place - or there should be - for consultation with interested people or groups in the community.
I appreciate that it is more difficult for Independents or people who may be representing a single organisation here in this chamber effectively to contact everybody that they feel they should contact. It is much easier for parties. As Mr Stevenson himself has already identified, we have the advantage of being able to allocate to individual members of our party responsibilities for certain portfolio areas. Part of that responsibility is that that particular person will contact relevant people out there in the community to ascertain their views on legislation coming before us. There is, therefore, a particular difficulty with small groups or even individuals here in this chamber. There is, however, a further opportunity for consultation with the community, and that is through our committee system, which was the subject of some debate in the case of the previous matter before the house. I think it is reasonable to say that this Assembly acts in a responsible manner and refers to a committee issues that we collectively regard as of sufficient importance. I cannot recall an instance when this did not happen. The normal practice for committees is then to call for public comment, to consult with the community on whatever is before that committee, with a view to forming an opinion.
Therefore, we have those opportunities to consult. But that does not mean that we should not explore other options for improving the consultation opportunity. I want to stress that it is the consultative process that we need to improve. Obviously, we cannot improve upon the decision making process - that is a matter for this legislature, not for the community - but we can certainly involve the community as much as possible in the consultative process that leads up to this Assembly making decisions relating to legislation. One thing that we could institute here - it could be done either by the Government or perhaps by the Assembly Secretariat itself - is to have a public interest listing whereby we could invite organisations out there in the community or even individuals to put forward their names and indicate their interest in particular fields, so that they could be placed on a list and, when the matter came up before the Assembly, automatically, the information related to that topic would go out to them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .