Page 564 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
is perfectly obvious. But I have come to the conclusion after 12 months that it is not obvious, and that those opposite either cannot or do not want to understand. I wonder whether Senator McMullan in the Federal Parliament is a member of the Executive. What view do those opposite take of these matters? I wonder. Mr Speaker, there is no confusion about that matter. It is quite false and misleading of those opposite to say that there is some holding out on the part of the Executive Deputies to be members of the Executive. That is particularly false in the case of Mr Jensen.
Mr Jensen has been assiduous, to my knowledge, in ensuring that people are under no illusions about what his position is in the Government. He has never, at any stage, made any pretence at being a member of the Executive. He explains his position as clearly as possible whenever he has the opportunity. It is quite false to suggest that anything else is the case.
The other point I want to make is that, when those opposite talk about the impartiality of chairs on committees, they are on dangerously thin ice. First of all, I want to refer to House of Representatives Practice, at page 594, where it makes quite clear that:
In practice the sessional orders or the resolution of appointment now normally provide that the committee shall elect as chairman a government member.
That is standard practice. That is a convention, if not a requirement, of standing orders. Those opposite should not express surprise about that. That is one part of the argument.
The other part is the question about conflict of interest. Those opposite have suggested that there is some impression of lack of impartiality by having Executive Deputies as chairs of committees. But there is a much more tangible and real question of impartiality which those opposite have not grappled with, and that is in the case of Ms Follett's chairmanship of the Public Accounts Committee. This Government has repeatedly asked Ms Follett whether she sees it as responsible for her to remain as chairman of that committee with the obvious impression of lack of impartiality when she is sitting in judgment on her own term of government; where she is inquiring into matters dealing intimately with her period as Chief Minister of this Territory. Yet she says that she sees no problem of impartiality. She sees herself as perfectly able to continue as chair of that committee.
What about Mr Connolly's statement, that not only should impartiality be achieved in fact, but it should be seen to be there? Where does he stand on Ms Follett's position as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee? Clearly, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, there is a grave inconsistency in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .