Page 4982 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 11 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We remain to be convinced that this is a wise or prudent move. It must be said that we have heard no argument in justification for this move. We have heard an explanation of what is happening. We have heard an explanation of the new structure which Mr Stefaniak outlined. Indeed, that new structure will clearly work. However, we have not heard a more basic justification for a decision to abolish a body which, it is universally acknowledged, is working efficiently and well and enjoys the widespread support of the industry which it regulates. In short, the Opposition sees this as a quite unnecessary piece of legislation.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (9.00), in reply: Firstly, I wish to endorse the comments of my colleague, Mr Stefaniak, and then to make one or two comments in reply to the Leader of the Opposition. One of the principal submissions made by the Leader of the Opposition was that the Government - in particular the Chief Minister - was driven by the PRB. I think the Leader of the Opposition used the expression "the PRB was his master". This was said in the context of the PRB's recommendations about the Gaming and Liquor Authority. If you look at page 123 of the report of the Priorities Review Board, you see that, far from the PRB being his master, the Chief Minister has rejected their recommendation. I will put this on the record. At paragraph 5.199 the PRB said:
The racing industry is important to the ACT and has significant employment, tourist and recreational, and revenue implications. The concerns of the racing industry might be addressed by more coordinated action and a restructured Authority, rather than by a separate Authority.
The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. There is that well-known, little document that circulates irregularly in Canberra, called the Insider. It has a 1920s sort of philosophy. It does not bear an imprimatur anywhere.
MR SPEAKER: Relevance, Mr Collaery, please.
MR COLLAERY: I am getting to that, Mr Speaker. On the front page of an issue - the origin of which one cannot tell - it says, "Public Accounts Committee investigates PRB". In that issue the Leader of the Opposition is quoted as saying that the Government has been backing away from the report. Where are we going with this Leader of the Opposition? She is opposing our Bill and basing her arguments on the fact that we are slavishly following the PRB, when, explicitly in the report at paragraph 5.199 on page 123, it says that we are not accepting their recommendation. One could hardly say that the PRB is the master of the Chief Minister, as Ms Follett said. I just make that point to indicate the level of credibility of the Opposition's argument that has been put forward to reject this Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .