Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - It is interesting to hear the government members making comment on the fact that they have had little time in which to consider this matter. That is an argument that I have put forward on many occasions since I have been here in relation to matters that they have introduced into this House and wanting to hear them at very short notice. Sometimes that has been accepted by the Government while other times it has not been. So it is good that they understand the problems that are associated with bringing matters on fairly quickly.

I must say that I would have appreciated a briefing in relation to this matter at the least to understand exactly what it will mean for the workload that would be put on these committees if these changes were made. I did mention that to the member this morning that I really have concerns about that because I could see it almost being full-time committees. I need to be satisfied that it is not going to be like that and that the workload is not going to be as great as what I think it might well be, just to start the process.

We are changing what has taken place in this Parliament for many, many years and I think if we are going to do that we need to be fully aware of exactly what it means and the impact that it will have on members moving forward, Madam President. I too am of the view that was just expressed a moment ago by the member for Mersey, that I really cannot see what an adjournment for at least three to four weeks is going to do. I appreciate the comments made by the member for Nelson, if it did get through, but I cannot see it being absolutely detrimental to it; I cannot see it being destructive of it, in fact it will allow us to look more closely at what is going on.

Of course, the document has been out and we are talking about the matter being adjourned, Madam President, but I was not aware until Thursday - it was either Thursday or Friday of last week - that the matter was coming on. I then started to try to get my head around it. I started asking some questions in relation to it. I more closely looked at the document, the discussion paper, but there were a lot of questions that came out of that discussion paper that I would need to know a lot more about. So, Madam President, I would say that if deferment does not get up today I would be left in the position of having to vote against it because of that lack of knowledge and the lack of understanding that I would need to make a decision. It was very similar in relation to the TOTE bill and that is why I voted against that. I required a deferment and I tried to get a deferment of that matter but I was unsuccessful and accordingly, I had to vote against it for that very reason. I would say that this would be the same again.

I appreciate the member's desire in wanting to move it forward and that of the other members who have spoken on it but on this occasion, Madam President, if the Government had tried to do this I would have been extremely critical of them. I have to be fair about this and I have been. As I said previously about trying to bulldoze matters through fairly quickly and likewise, I would ask that the members think about the application that has been put forward on this occasion. I cannot see it being absolutely detrimental to the process and accordingly at this stage, unless there was compelling argument put forward to allow the time that this part of the debate concludes, Madam President, I will be supporting the application for a deferment.