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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2018 Week 12 Hansard (Tuesday, 30 October 2018) . . Page.. 4424 ..

government has already engaged extensively on this through the community consultation that commenced in August 2017, through the six-month citizens jury process that incorporated detailed input from stakeholders as well as community members, and through direct engagement with stakeholders since the exposure draft was released.

The terms of reference for the committee’s inquiry are specifically focused on the bill itself and how well it meets the objectives identified by the citizens jury as a result of their deliberations. I am also mindful of the remarks that Mr Rattenbury has made in this place concerning adopting the practice of the Senate and seeing more inquiries into legislation being brought forward. I think there is some merit in what Mr Rattenbury has suggested.

However, if committees are going to take the time that is being proposed here to inquire into the text of bills then this place will become unworkable. The work in progress of building a more vibrant and inclusive city will come to a halt and important reforms will not be progressed in this place. Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we look at the time lines here and ensure the appropriate responses.

MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (10.04): I move:

Omit “27 November 2018”, substitute “14 December 2018”.

I appreciate that the amendment is possibly being circulated right now. Basically, my amendment to Ms Lee’s motion is to change the reporting date to 14 December. I think that the proposal to report on 27 November and then for the government to introduce the legislation in the same sitting week, basically, is grossly disrespectful to the process. It means that the committee will have reported but clearly its report will not have informed the legislation, because while PCO works miracles, even PCO needs a few more days in which to work its miracles. I think that is plainly an unworkable solution.

Obviously, I am not a member of the committee. I do not know its workload and its considerations, but given that the majority of the committee felt that it had to be postponed, I think we have to accept reality and suggest a slightly longer time. The reason I am suggesting 14 December is that it gives the committee a couple more weeks. That should be enough to finish. Then it gives the government plenty of time to look at the committee’s report so that it can actually introduce legislation informed by the committee in the first sitting period in February, which I think is a much more respectful and reasonable process than introducing legislation two days after the committee has reported, which clearly would not be informed by the committee.

MS LEE (Kurrajong) (10.06): I have a few comments, particularly in response to Mr Gentleman’s words. Members may recall that this inquiry was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety on 20 September. The committee wasted no time in calling for submissions. This call was published on 21 September, with a closing date of 12 October.

In that time the committee has received more than 60 submissions from organisations and more than 15 submissions from individuals, totalling 346 pages of submissions.

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