Page 4046 - Week 13 - Thursday, 10 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Follett: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I merely wish to draw your attention to the number of times that you have had to call to order both Mr De Domenico and Mr Stevenson and suggest to you that not only are they out of order in continuing to interject in this way, but also there is a definite flavour of intimidation about the way that they are going about it. They are out of order.
MADAM SPEAKER: I call Ms Ellis.
MS ELLIS: This attitude of the lateness of the day, therefore the inappropriateness of the referral, is absolutely and totally irresponsible. It flies in the face of open discussion and democratic consideration, which, I might add, is what CIR is claimed to be all about. Mr Humphries has chosen to treat the questions, the unanswered queries in this report, as conclusions of the committee. That is misleading; it is wrong; they are not. I urge people interested in this question of CIR in the ACT to read the report carefully - all pages, including Mr Humphries's.
I realise that some people will choose to regard this report as a means of killing off CIR in the ACT. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a member of that committee, I could have very easily said, "No; absolutely no. I disagree with CIR, and I am going to recommend nothing but that". But that would have been equally as irresponsible as the Liberals' position. This process has raised many questions, all of which deserve proper, full consideration. As a responsible member of this Assembly, I cannot, in all conscience, agree to something so fundamentally new, so fundamentally different, without having those questions answered. It is simply not good enough; it is grossly irresponsible; in fact, it is politically opportunistic to expect any agreement to a Bill like this, at the same time knowing that changes are needed and that flaws are there to be addressed.
Mr Stevenson: A Bill like what? What about the EIR Bill?
Mr Moore: I told you why we dismissed it.
Mr Stevenson: I know. You had to get that out of the way in a hurry, did you not?
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson, you will have your turn. Order!
MS ELLIS: Madam Speaker, may I also apologise to the house if I tend to be speaking loudly on this matter, but I tend to think that I have no option. One of the strongest voices who appeared before our committee in favour of CIR told us that it would be a waste of time proceeding if the process was not binding on the Assembly. How do we verify signatures, and at what cost? There is some debate about threshold levels. There is the question of recall. The CRB leaves this issue open. There are questions on the constitutionality of the CRB in its operation in the ACT. A legal opinion on this aspect is at Attachment 4 of the report. How irresponsible would we have been not to have sought that opinion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .