Page 1362 - Week 07 - Thursday, 24 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
whole industry in this town would go down the drain. Is the Chief Minister going to suggest to the people of this city that a firm, solid consultancy business out there is going to go down the drain because they are not prepared to allow them to operate for the government of either this house or that one on the other hill because it is tax avoidance? Mr Speaker, this is not tax avoidance.
Mr Duby: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again Mr Jensen is incorrect in his statements. The Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, as it applies on the hill, as he refers to it, specifically excludes the use of consultants by members.
Mr Collaery: You can say that in the debate.
Mr Duby: Well, I cannot stand to hear false information.
MR JENSEN: Mr Speaker, I am suggesting that what is good for the goose is good for the gander; it is as simple as that. So, Mr Speaker, let us not make any bones about this. As far as we are concerned on this particular issue, what we are suggesting is that, within the staff allocation that has been given to the parties and members within this particular house, they are able to employ consultancies in a way in which, as I understand my colleague Mr Collaery will indicate, other members of this particular Assembly have been able to do. That is all I need to say on this particular point, Mr Speaker, and I will be indicating to you that the Rally will be supporting this motion as amended.
MR STEFANIAK (3.53): Just briefly, I wish to speak to the amendment and also to the substantive motion. Mr Speaker, I would like to make a few points. Firstly, I know Mr Wood is a very hard-working member of this Assembly and a very valued member of this Assembly. However, he is part of the Labor Party, and the Labor Party upstairs has 21 members. I know Mr Wood is allocated one member formally, but surely his colleagues and comrades would give him access to the others. That does not quite put him on the same plane as some other people in this Assembly.
Dennis Stevenson is a one-man party, and I think the analogy to the Rally, with six staff members for four - in other words, 1.5 per member - is a very apt analogy and I think he makes it very properly. We all supposedly have access to typing and other facilities from the Assembly, but much of the typing work done by members is indeed confidential work - confidential for constituents, confidential for parties. This place leaks like a sieve, at any rate, and I hardly think that - - -
Ms Follett: Why are you doing party work?
Mr Wood: It should not be confidential for parties. You should not be doing party work.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .