Page 2027 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
needs some guidelines in relation to its implementation. As far as the Rally is concerned, we believe that, in order for us to be able to do our job within this particular Assembly, of supporting the interests and the requirements of the people of the ACT - the people of the ACT elected all of us, not just me, not just Rosemary Follett but all of the members in this particular chamber - we must be able to represent those people fully.
Each member on the opposition side has been given one or 1.5 staff members to carry out a particular role. I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, and the members present that it is very difficult to find a person with the necessary experience to cover such a wide range of responsibilities in relation to assistance in research and development of programs for members.
In relation to the preparation of private members' Bills, the Government's legislative program is so great that the Government drafting office is unable to give us the necessary support to enable us to bring forward motions in relation to private members' business.
I sent a letter a week ago, or maybe a little longer ago, asking for some amendments to a particular piece of legislation to bring in one element of Rally policy in relation to the Unit Titles Ordinance. I have yet to see that particular proposal put before me. It is suggested that in this situation organisations like the Rally, the Liberal Party, Mr Duby's No Self Government Party, Mr Stevenson, or even Mr Moore for that matter, may wish to have and employ a consultant solicitor, a person or a group of persons in a firm who have considerable expertise, knowledge and experience in drawing up legislation.
I think it is highly appropriate for us to be able to do that. Normally, I understand, when you employ a firm of solicitors to do a particular job you are not necessarily employing an individual; you are employing a firm. Therefore, you are effectively giving a consultancy to that firm of solicitors to prepare a Bill. It is highly appropriate, I would suggest, that we be able to do that.
We are not asking for anything more than the requirements that have enabled the Chief Minister to employ consultants in exactly the same way, with the same rules, conditions and standards of employment that are applied. We have no request to go beyond that, only the particular requirements that are set down in that Bill. That is why, during discussions on the LA(MS) Bill, we sought from the Government an indication of support in that particular area. But the Government was intransigent on that. It decided it would not assist, for whatever reason. It made some claim related to problems associated with tax evasion or tax dodging, whatever you want to call it. They were the sorts of arguments that were put before us as to why the Government would not assist.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .