Page 1356 - Week 07 - Thursday, 24 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (3.31): Mr Speaker, I think it must be a basis of operation of this Assembly that there shall be equality amongst us in the availability of and access to resources to do the job that we need to do. Mr Stevenson appears to have identified an anomaly which relates only to him, and if that is the fact of it then the anomaly should be corrected. So for that reason the Liberals in opposition will support the first part of Mr Stevenson's motion. It appears to be a small adjustment to make and, if it merely removes an anomaly and puts him on the same basis as other individual members of the Assembly, then he is within his rights to claim it.
The second part of the motion, however, gives me some cause for concern because it would give to Mr Stevenson a right that no other member of this Assembly possesses. Instead of introducing a condition of equality we would be introducing a condition of inequality. For that reason I had difficulty with it. However, I understand, Mr Speaker, that one of my colleagues in the Rally proposes to move an amendment to that second part which will remove that anomaly. Without anticipating what my colleague might do, I understand that it is the intention that it be amended to say essentially that all members of the Assembly should have the same rights in this regard.
If that amendment is put forward, as I understand it will be, and if it does apply this access to resources equally to all members of the Assembly, then we Liberals in opposition will also support that part of the motion. So I think that I need to say no more. We must ensure that all members of this Assembly are provided with the resources to which they are entitled and that there is not seen to be any anomaly in that allocation. To the extent that this motion removes an anomaly, we support it.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister) (3.33): Mr Speaker, the Government is opposed to this motion, which I consider would provide favoured treatment to Mr Stevenson, quite far from there being an anomaly. It appears to me that considerable confusion exists about the basis on which staffing entitlements for Assembly members have been determined by the Government - confusion which I am at a loss to understand. It has been explained over and over and over, but let me again set the record straight. The Government has approached the staffing question on an even-handed basis and has attempted to make adequate provision for Assembly members to properly discharge their responsibilities as public representatives.
Mr Speaker, I am at a total loss to understand why Mr Stevenson regards the Rally as the only comparable party to his own. I presume that the Rally might have some idea; I do not. Why, for example, is the No Self Government Party not a relevant comparison? Why, for example, is the position of Mr Wood not a relevant comparison? Mr Wood fulfils the role of a single member on the first floor, fulfils it, in my view, with great distinction and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .