Page 3452 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 18 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
here are a reflection of agencies receiving less money. There is no doubt about that; they have received less money, and in some instances they may translate that into fewer staff.
If they choose to make their savings in that way, then we will go through the full and proper process of consultation with unions and with staff. There will be no sackings. There will be no across-the-board redundancies. All of the rules will be followed if - and I say "if" - agencies choose to translate their budget allocations into staff reductions. But the Government has made no such decisions.
Public Corruption Legislation
MR JENSEN: Mr Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney-General, Mr Connolly. The Attorney no doubt recalls that my colleague the former Attorney-General was due to introduce the Public Corruption Bill in the week of the last no-confidence motion. In view of the fact that this Bill was prepared in accordance with the unanimous recommendation of the Legislative Assembly's Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which included a member of the current Cabinet, can the Attorney advise when the Public Corruption Bill will be introduced into the Assembly?
Mr Berry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is calling on the Attorney-General to announce government policy.
Mr Jensen: May I speak to that point of order, Mr Speaker?
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Mr Jensen.
Mr Jensen: Mr Speaker, as I understand it, the Public Corruption Bill is on the legislative program. I am just asking the Government to indicate when they are going to introduce it.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, I agree. I overrule your objection, Mr Berry. It is a matter of timing, not policy, that is being asked.
MR CONNOLLY: The Government is reviewing all legislation prepared by the former Government, and that is a matter that we do not see as having a high priority in the current legislative program. If opposition members were prepared to debate matters, as could have happened yesterday - we could have advanced progress on the guardianship package - we could introduce more legislation. But, if the Opposition shows no enthusiasm for assisting the progress of matters through the house, that matter will have to take its place in the queue, and it is not at the top of the queue. This obsession that the Residents Rally seems to be rediscovering with so-called matters of public corruption is quaint, Mr Speaker, but we do not see this as a matter of high priority.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .