Page 395 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 21 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
was always running before. That is a very important matter, so let us not have these unnecessary remarks about my colleagues not taking part in committees. We have got it all organised. My colleagues here know what committees they are expected to be working on, and they are looking forward to that task, but we must have confidence in the committee system.
Mr Jensen: Well, let us into the secret!
MR WOOD: I am sorry you are laughing about it, because this matter really is fundamental to the way that the parliament operates. Mr Stefaniak made a remark that I want to contest. He went on at some length about the Australian Federal Police being the best police force in Australia. That may be the case, and I am not going to contest that point of view, but it is not the important aspect we ought to be considering. The question is: is it the best that we can get? Can we do better even than the Australian Federal Police? I think we should be aiming to do better than good. So, Mr Stefaniak, I do not think your point is really the one that we should be considering. I am not going to argue about the competence of the Australian Federal Police, but that is not the major issue.
The amendment that Mr Collaery moved mentions the working party that is taking those negotiations along. That is important; it has to happen and it is not incompatible at all with the proceedings that I would envisage of the select committee. That working party will give good, sound, bureaucratic advice, but nevertheless, to repeat my point, it will be inadequate advice because it is not necessarily reflective of broad community views, and that is why we need that committee.
I thought I heard Mr Collaery say that that time in July was not a critical point. Perhaps if I heard him correctly, he could tell Mr Kaine that, because we do not absolutely have to suffer any damage to or any loss of what we can achieve by trying to adhere to that very rigid timetable.
I note the amendment moved by my colleague Mr Berry and I support it. I think it is a sensible way to go because there was no real intention that the select committee we planned to establish was going to take the running for the Government. I expected that the committee would be giving advice back to this parliament, and directly to the Government in that way. It is not proposed that we should negotiate with the Federal Government and with our counterparts over there. The proposed amendment is sensible and I urge all members to support it.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr Berry's) to the amendment be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .