Page 5458 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COLLAERY (6.51): Mr Wood is determined to find some sinister motive in everything my colleague Mr Jensen is doing. The fact is that at a late stage in legislative drafting in the Alliance Government we ensured that, wherever appropriate, it said "Executive" in legislation, so that the practice of the Cabinet making these decisions, such as appointing a Territory Chief Planner, was reflected in the legislation. So, the "Executive" was pushed into legislation in that context.
I need to say that the caucus machine might be that tight for the Labor Party; but the Labor Party, of course, never forms coalitions. It has not formed a coalition government since 1908. Those of us on this side of the house do not have that iconoclastic approach - I will spell that for Mr Berry - and therefore the term "Executive" suits coalition governments. It ensures that one Minister of one persuasion will not necessarily make the decision. It simply reflects a Cabinet process.
If the Labor Party are going to tell us today that they are going to appoint a Chief Planner without a Cabinet decision on it first, I would be amazed. Why should the legislation not reflect that practice? It is not a major issue. It is not a matter that we in the Rally are going to die in a ditch over. It is not a Rally agenda item, necessarily.
By the same token, why is the Labor Party so closed to what started to become more of the practice in the Bills we introduced in the latter stages of our Government? It is not a foregone conclusion, by any means, that the Labor Party are going to get to administer this Act after next February, and I think it is in our interests to ensure that it is "Executive", so that it lends itself to cabinet-style government, not caucus government.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (6.53): Mr Speaker, I have sympathy for Mr Collaery's viewpoint, but I think he is confusing the decision making process about the appointment of a Chief Planner on the one hand and the appointment of the Chief Planner on the other. I do not disagree, even for a moment, that in the Alliance Government we did, and in a future Alliance Government we will again, consider the selection and the appointment of such a statutory officer as a commitment and a requirement of the Executive. But when it comes to actually appointing a planning officer or a statutory officer, I think that it is sensible.
I am not too sure how the Executive appoints such a person anyway. I think it is a responsibility of the Minister because it is the Minister who ultimately is going to issue directions and do all of the things that are necessary in an executive way to make sure that this statutory officer, or any statutory officer, does what is expected of him.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .