Page 5184 - Week 17 - Thursday, 13 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: I understood that Mr Collaery was referring to Mr Berry's background in the people that he represents, and I took that as perhaps an abject compliment. Please proceed, Mr Collaery.
MR COLLAERY: The arguments put forward by Mr Berry are well debated ones in this town. The Canberra community has one of the largest non-government sector groupings per capita in this country, so far as I can determine from talking to welfare Minister colleagues. There is an enormous community involvement, and if you strung out the numbers of voluntary committees and honorary boards in this city they would stretch out through the doors of this chamber.
What we are talking about is a question of precedent, issues relating to renumerating or paying honorary boards - - -
Members interjected.
MR COLLAERY: I am so disturbed that I cannot even pronounce it, Mr Speaker. I note that none of my colleagues jumped up to defend that gross insult about the poverty of my expression, so we are not so sensitive on this side of the house, Mr Speaker.
Mr Berry said that it was a stupid decision. No policies are immutable, I remind Mr Moore. The question of having a full and proper policy on these issues is one for a well known tribunal, and it is also one for the community to consider in a context of access and equity. Mr Berry is shot down in flames on this one. He set up a home and community care advisory committee when he was Minister. I do not know whether he ever got to meet them, but I certainly did, and there were appointed to that committee - and quite properly so - people with disabilities. No provision was made by our former Minister opposite here for any payments for them. In fact, it is simple gross hypocrisy. The first thing that occurred to me when I met this committee was the difficulty they must have encountered in coming into the city to meet with me. The question Mr Berry poses should perhaps be in our minds when and if we conduct a full-scale review of these issues. This is not going to be a situation where we will make a one-off decision.
Mr Moore, presumably, has spoken to Mr Humphries. Suggestions that the Rally has had some kill on this issue are absurd. This has been handled entirely, to my knowledge, between Mr Humphries and Mr Moore. There has been no joint party room issue about this matter and there is no inter-party nonsense going on. The record clearly shows that, when and if we get to this issue and look at the whole precedential aspect of paying these honorary boards, Dr Kinloch may well express the view that we should pay them and that there are arguments for that based both
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .