Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)

This is the first time that I and the Minister have spoken. He said that we have not worked together before. I welcome his positive words about the Bill. I understand that he has a commitment and a desire to pass this. However, with all due respect, this is not just about his Department. This is something that has happened across the board with all different types of Bills. Passing this Bill, allowing it to go to Committee Stage and allowing Committee Stage debate would not prevent the Department from strengthening the Bill or the Minister’s work with Cuan from happening. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the timed amendment. I would love the Minister to trust me as much as he is asking me to trust him, in the sense that I do not want to ram through bad legislation. If, in the meantime, while we allow the debate to happen and we allow the space to have these important conversations, the Minister came up with a Bill that worked better, I would of course withdraw my Bill. I understand that the Minister has the Department behind him.

I have consulted many providers around this. I did not pull this out of thin air. I recognise that the Minister would definitely need to speak to Cuan as the main lead. I am delighted to hear that the Minister thinks there is a different option of service providers having a pass that they hand out instead of the application process with the photo. All of those things are brilliant. I respect and understand that the Department has given this a lot of thought, and I thank the Minister for that. Again, I feel that this can still happen in the normal legislative process.

I wonder why we have Opposition Bills if the feeling is that once we put in a Bill and spend time, it will just be delayed by 12 months. As a new legislator, it raises questions for me about the purpose and role I play in this House. That is where I am coming from. Senator Ruane made it clear that all of the changes, suggestions and strengthening that the Minister is coming forward with, which I respect, could be done if we moved this to Committee Stage. We would not be passing the Bill tonight anyway, and it would be following through various stages of the legislative process with space to be strengthened.

The Minister will have heard from other Senators that we have had this challenge across the board. We have a good, sensible Bill that clearly has a lot of support. I thank all of the Senators on the Government side for attending and providing that support. I know it means a lot to them, and I know they have may have personal experiences, the experiences of friends and family, and instances in their own constituencies where this comes up. This is a modest Bill. I accept it may not be the most straightforward legislation, and there are components that the Minister's Department and the Department of Transport would need to iron out, perhaps also with the Department of justice. However, I think those things can be done as part of the normal legislative process.

That is why, while I am sorry, I am not in a position to support the 12-month timed amendment. While the Minister says that it does not mean he is putting it on the long finger, it does mean that we cannot debate the Bill again for 12 months in this House. In that sense, there is a kicking to touch from our perspective. I know it does not mean the Minister would not be working on it behind the scenes, but he could also be working on it behind the scenes if we moved to Committee Stage. It is not like Committee Stage would be next week. That is not the reality, although we would love it to be an option. That is not how it would normally work because so many things are coming through on the agenda.

I thank the Minister for his engagement and that of his team and the Department.