Page 340 - Week 01 - Thursday, 27 February 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Would I have liked it to have been done quicker? Yes, I would have, and I am keen to bring a bill to the Assembly as soon as possible. But I acknowledge that it remains the case that stakeholders still wish for more time to comment. Therefore, the roundtable is a useful way forward.
I do not believe an Assembly inquiry would assist in bringing a timely resolution to these matters and a bill before the Assembly. The preference would be for the roundtable to be convened, for the issues of concern to be canvassed and discussed, a report prepared, as suggested in Mr Rattenbury’s amendment, and then the capacity for a bill to be considered by the government and introduced in this place. I think that is a sensible way forward, a sensible compromise, and the government will accept the amendment proposed by Mr Rattenbury.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.13): I could not resist the opportunity to come down and speak in this debate, from experience. I welcome the suggestion of a roundtable, but it seems to me this is not an either/or situation. Members who have been around this place for a while have probably heard me speak on this subject before. There is a precedent for roundtables with environment bills. When we passed the environment protection legislation in 1998 there was an extensive roundtable process before the bill was introduced; the bill was introduced into this place and there was a committee inquiry. There were recommendations for amendments to the bill through the committee inquiry and the bill passed without dissent in this place because of the work that was done through the roundtable system and through the committee process.
What we have heard here today from government ministers is effectively a vote of no confidence in the committee system. They cannot guarantee that they could get something through the committee system because the committee system is not working, because members on both sides of this place are gaming the standing orders to make sure that the committee system does not work.
With respect to what we have done here today, Minister Rattenbury and Minister Corbell have said that it is not necessary to have a committee inquiry. The committee system should be the jewel of this place. It has been the jewel of this place. But it has been undermined by all members of this place in this Assembly to the point that the government no longer has confidence in taking a matter to a committee for a proper and dispassionate approach to the matters.
I think it is unfortunate that we can only have the roundtable and not the committee inquiry. In other parliaments all matters of substantive policy go to a committee for inquiry. We are one of the few parliaments that do not, as a regular thing, consider referring matters of substantive policy for inquiry.
Yes, it has taken a long time. Mr Corbell should have been more interested in roundtables in the last eight years when this government has been getting its act together and trying to get this legislation to this point. Ms Lawder came up with the right approach—a committee inquiry to look at this, a transparent way of looking at this. We know who says what to whom if we have a public inquiry. We do not know
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video