Page 4345 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (12.21), in reply: Only today we have had members speak strongly for my motion. We had Mr Humphries, we had Mr Connolly, we had Ms Szuty and now we have had the Chief Minister; yet everyone in the house is going to vote against it, apparently. The Chief Minister spoke stridently against a matter that was passed through the house with what she says was too much haste. I spoke on it myself in the debate and said that I was concerned about it but that on balance I considered it to be urgent. I would agree with a motion that required that a matter could be considered urgent only if agreed upon by this Assembly, only if we stood up here and agreed that it was urgent.
It was suggested that I would delay matters in this Assembly. Let us look at the practical and democratic aspects of a parliament. We make laws under various names, whether you call them regulations or anything else. We make laws that govern how people live their lives. We greatly affect people again and again. In the very debate we have had this morning Mr Connolly said, "You are taking a great leap forward, not knowing where you are going". So, the Labor Party surely would say that time should be allowed. I have heard just about every member in this Assembly and every member in the last Assembly stand up when it was not their matter but someone else's and say, "We are moving too rapidly on this matter". But will they ever do anything about it when they have a chance? No. And why not? Is it to do with a genuine delay? Is it to do with democracy or is it to do with an elitist view that says, "We know best."? I suggest that it does not have much to do with democracy. It does not have much to do with delay. How can we talk about delay when we talk about laws that affect people's lives? If you believe that you serve people in this community, they have every right to have sufficient time on Mr Moore's amendments and all others, to be consulted, to let us know what their views are and to make a decision.
The Chief Minister shakes her head. I have heard the Chief Minister stand in this Assembly when the Liberal Alliance had power and complain about the speed with which Bills went through this house. It must be unfortunate that this motion is being debated today, a few minutes after the Labor Party said that we had the very problem my motion addresses. Now I give them the opportunity to do something about it, and what will they say? Every one of the eight of them will vote against the opportunity for people to have some time.
Suggestions have been made about how many Bills have gone through this Assembly rapidly. There have been dozens and dozens go through this Assembly in seven days or less in this term. In our last session 20 new Bills were introduced. Bills are still being introduced this week - and we are getting very close to the end of this term and the end of the year.
No reason has been presented as to why the motion should not go through. There are two different aspects of the motion. I cannot recall one other person mentioning anything about the other part of the motion. One part is to require an overall time of 60 days, but what about the other point that you simply did not mention? What about my proposal that after a Bill is introduced we wait a minimum of a couple of weeks before matters can be raised? Mr Moore could table his motion or his amendment and we would not have to vote on it then and there. We could ask questions of the proposer; we could discuss the matter; we could bring up points of view for people in the community. No-one said that that was a good idea and no-one said that that was a bad idea; but you are all about to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .