Page 4747 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 7 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association regional conference that I attended in Sydney, where a very interesting paper was prepared by one of the Pacific Island states which attended that conference. They had some very interesting mechanisms for how petitions could be dealt with within that jurisdiction.
I also note, Madam Speaker, your suggestion that standing order 174 be modified so that suggested amendments could be the trigger for delay or broader consideration of legislation before debate takes place in the Assembly. I believe that your statement that the overall objective would be to further ensure that, for complex legislation, it becomes a matter of course that a high level of public discussion is sought at the critical stage of the legislative process has significant merit. Madam Speaker, in accepting the merit of your proposal I must, to be consistent, take the view that all amendments proposed to the Community Referendum Bill at this time should be the trigger for delay and broader consideration before consideration by the Assembly.
I note that, in his dissenting report, Mr Humphries also supported the second recommendation to some degree. As a result, I would anticipate that Mr Humphries would agree that the amendments proposed today require further consideration. It may be appropriate that this further consideration be given by the select committee which the report recommends consider the concept of a community-initiated referendum process for the ACT. Let me reiterate that I support the principle of community-initiated referendums; but, in light of the report of the select committee, I do believe that the issue requires further consideration by a select committee of the next Assembly. I look forward to considering the recommendations of that select committee in due course.
I believe that this Assembly has a responsibility to look at such significant issues fully and to consider fully their implications for the ACT. I referred to this legislation as landmark legislation. If it is adopted in the ACT, it will be the first State jurisdiction in Australia which has adopted it. I believe that the issue is worthy of substantive consideration, and it is an appropriate task for the next Assembly.
MR MOORE (6.01): Madam Speaker, I note that following the tabling of the report of the select committee in the Assembly an article appeared in the Canberra Times titled "MLAs Do Hatchet Job On Good Idea". It was an article written by Crispin Hull, somebody for whom I have a great deal of respect. In the article he used the phrase, "Moore and Ellis said they had come to praise CIR and promptly buried it". As far as I am concerned, nothing could be further from the truth. We have said that we must not proceed down a path where we do not know what we are doing.
We have heard again and again, from members of the Liberal Party and from Mr Stevenson, of all the advantages of CIR. They are very convincing arguments. I still believe that it is appropriate to support CIR in principle, but I also believe that it is imperative that we look to see what problems it has had and work out how we can deal with those problems. When problems were suggested, and when we heard responses from either Mr Stevenson or Mrs Carnell, we always heard of very simple and simplistic answers to what happened elsewhere.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .