Page 381 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 21 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
will indicate clearly that he would want - and I do not wish to go any further publicly - any arrangement we make with the Commonwealth Government to ensure a guaranteed situation so that if the costings figures which are substantially supplied to us by the Commonwealth, the other negotiating party, are wrong, then we have some guaranteed fall back for additional funding of that component.
Mr Speaker, I acknowledge the good motives behind the Labor Party's motion today. However, I believe it is premature. I believe that perhaps it should have come on day one of self-government. We could have had a select committee to look at general issues of the community's perception of policing to aid the negotiating position. But to impose a select committee now - - -
Mr Whalan: Ha, ha!
MR COLLAERY: Mr Whalan thinks this is amusing. To impose a select committee now would fracture the negotiating process. I undertake on behalf of the Alliance Government to fully consult with the Leader of the Opposition and Mr Wood, as spokesperson in this regard for the Opposition and other members, at the appropriate time for an appropriate committee referral. With the Social Policy Committee it can be a self-referral on issues which may arise on specific policing aspects.
Mr Berry: That is a very qualified commitment. Thanks very much for that. It is not worth two bob!
MR COLLAERY: That is an open, straight commitment.
MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (11.13): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion that Mr Wood has moved and to oppose the so-called alternative proposition put by Mr Collaery. I think it is very important at the outset that we look at the relevant part of Mr Wood's motion, which is to establish a select committee. Of course, that relevant part is entirely omitted from Mr Collaery's amendment. So I believe that Mr Collaery's amendment does directly negate Mr Wood's motion.
It would have been much more honest of Mr Collaery to simply oppose the motion. Why we have to go through this farce of a meaningless, mealy-mouthed amendment just to assuage Mr Collaery's conscience, I do not know, but that is the case. The amendment makes about as much sense as Mr Collaery's statement just now that Mr Wood's motion is premature. He then said that the matter should have been raised on the first day of self-government, 12 months ago. Brilliant Bernard, brilliant!
There are a great many reasons for supporting Mr Wood's motion, and I am very disappointed indeed to note that the members opposite do not see fit to do so. Nobody in this chamber knows more about the committee system than Mr Wood. He has been the most active participant - the most useful
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .