Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 101 ..

Mr Humphries: And for Government members too.

MR MOORE: Mr Humphries says, "And for Government members too". I am very pleased he made that interjection. I was trying to work out how I was going to work into that issue. The Government has been suggesting that they have dealt with the major parts of the legislation they were seeking to introduce on coming into government. When we look at the program that they provided for us yesterday we can see on it important pieces of legislation that need to be dealt with, but the very big tasks that they were very keen to achieve have been achieved and it may well be time for the Government to say, "The Parliamentary Counsel is really a counsel for the parliament, not just a counsel for the Government". The Government has had a fair go. Maybe it is time now to back off on some of its own legislation and suggest to parliamentary counsel that they ought to work on private members' legislation, which in a sense is also Assembly business. For example, we ought to have been able to use the broadcasting legislation today. I think we would have felt much more comfortable about our media coverage had that legislation been passed. It demonstrates that there is an urgency for legislation that affects the Assembly. I tabled that legislation after it had been through an incredibly long Assembly process to ensure that it met the needs of all members of the Assembly. It is time to put in an effort and pass that legislation.

I pay tribute to Mr Osborne for raising this issue in the Assembly. I know it has been worrying him for some time. I think it is appropriate to air our concern publicly, at the same time making it very clear that this is in no way an attack on the work done by parliamentary counsel. It is an attack on the Government for inadequately resourcing parliamentary counsel, for ensuring that they are not able to meet the needs of this Assembly as a whole.

MS TUCKER (11.50): We also regret that we have to speak on this motion and that this matter has become a political issue. We respect the work of the parliamentary counsel, and I want to make it clear that in supporting this motion we are in no way criticising the work of the parliamentary counsel. In this parliament we have a minority of members on the Government benches. While I respect the right of the Government to have precedence in drafting, because they have to get on with the work of governing, a substantial proportion of new initiatives brought to the Assembly are from the non-Government members. The Bills List of 30 December illustrates this fact. Of the 25 Bills before the Assembly, 13 are from private members. This is one of the reasons the Greens put forward a motion amending the standing orders - a motion which was successfully carried - to extend the time for private members business to all day on Wednesdays. Obviously, private members need to be able to get their legislation drafted within a reasonable timeframe in order for it to be debated in appropriate time.

I understand that some members - and Mr Moore has alluded to this - are resorting to having their legislation drafted privately. This obviously is not an ideal situation at all, but it has arisen out of frustration. Our office has had some legislation at the drafters for a very long time. We are not demanding that we put something into the drafters one week and get it back the next week, but to get to a situation where we might not even get back a Bill that was submitted in early 1996 in the course of this Assembly is, I believe, inappropriate, given the make-up of this Assembly. We support this motion of Mr Osborne's.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .