Page 1484 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In recent times all bills have been drafted by parliamentary counsel. In fact, on the odd occasion when bills have not been drafted by parliamentary counsel there have been a few problems and a bit of confusion, but I do not think we have seen that in recent times. Bills put in over this millennia—over the last couple of Assemblies at least—have been done by parliamentary counsel, and they have a certain way of doing things because they are experts. I think that is something we are all fairly familiar with.
An explanatory statement can certainly be helpful. Whilst I think it is traditional and should remain so with government bills, because there are no resourcing implications and there is a long and tried set of precedents and criteria which government departments use and will continue to use as far as explanatory statements are concerned, it can be unreasonable to expect private members to be able to do the same.
An explanatory statement that does not really say much is pretty useless. It is a bit of a concern when you see one in a government bill which merely regurgitates the section because you can get that information from the bill. An explanatory statement is useful when it explains something which might be a bit tricky or gives the background. It is an intricate art and I do not think that should be mandated. Again, if people have problems, especially with a bill done by a private member, go and talk to them. Kerrie Tucker’s office certainly used to do that with me. I think Dr Foskey’s office has done that as well, and we would do the same.
Whilst I can see the sentiment behind it I think that, all in all, the bill adds an impost. I think it is unnecessary. As the attorney has said, some further problems might crop up out of the consultation bit by mandating that. There may be groups who might not want an explanatory statement in a bill. I think that, for us in the Assembly, that is the biggest problem—and it is cyclical. There will always be a crossbench and both major parties will always spend time in government and in opposition. When you are in opposition I think it is just that much harder—and perhaps not dangerous as much as unnecessary—to put in explanatory statements as a matter of course for everything. Accordingly, we will be voting against the bill as well.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (4.17), in reply: This bill has been before the Assembly for some months. I am very disappointed to hear that both the opposition and the government have declined to support it. We were warned that the government would do so last week at a government business meeting. I should say that my office has been very open to discussion about this bill ever since we presented it some months ago, and we would have been happy to discuss the problems that members have pointed out today.
I thank the Attorney-General for his thorough investigation into practices in other states. I believe that the instances and processes he describes support our legislation, but he apparently believes they bolster his opposition to it. There was, of course, always the possibility of amending our legislation after discussion with us, rather than outright rejection. It is interesting that a seemingly innocuous bill has encountered such opposition.
I had this bill drafted following comments at the scrutiny of bills conference conducted by the Assembly last year when the issue of providing background to bills and how to improve the quality of legislative scrutiny came up. Thus I thought there would be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .