Page 143 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: In fact, I have now given him the opportunity to say that there has never been a Minister in this Government in a scandal, and his corrected statement is no doubt correct at this stage. But of course there has been controversy over appointments in the last three years. I refer specifically to the Pharmacy Board and to the Tourism Commission. Madam Speaker, I do not think there is any point in going back over those, other than to draw attention to the fact that there has been controversy.
It is important, Madam Speaker, not only that we ensure that appointments do not go to mates but also that the system is designed to be clean and that there is a system in place to avoid that situation. The Leader of the Opposition, in her tabling speech, referred to the Fitzgerald inquiry, to WA Inc. and so forth. I could continue with those, but I think it is fair to say that there are those who argue that there is in fact an ACT Inc. as well. That is something that we need to avoid, and it is something that we need to ensure is seen to be avoided. There must be an appropriate process in place to ensure that no such thing develops in any effective way in the ACT.
Madam Speaker, I believe that it can be achieved by a rather short and rather simple method. The simple method is simply to ask Ministers - in fact, in the legislation, to require Ministers - to consult with a standing committee of the Assembly nominated by the Speaker. I give as an example an appointment that went through a similar process. An appointment such as Commissioner for the Environment would obviously go to the Standing Committee on Conservation, Heritage and Environment. I will come back to that specific appointment and the issues involved there. Where no committee is nominated by the Speaker or where it is not obvious to the Speaker to which committee an appointment should be referred, then the fallback ought to be the Public Accounts Committee. That is what is provided for in the legislation. It is just a simple demand that the Minister consult with the committee. The Bill also provides for a process whereby an appointment made by a Minister is subject to disallowance in this Assembly. It seems to me that that is an entirely appropriate way for the Assembly to exercise its powers. The power for such things ought to reside with the parliament.
Mr Connolly has asked about the powers of the committees and how the committees will handle such things. The answer is that the committees themselves will determine how they handle that consultation process. It is something that will be negotiated with the Ministers. That is why I draw attention to the appointment of the Commissioner for the Environment. Without being required to engage in any formal process, Mr Wood, appropriately, consulted widely with members of the Assembly as to a nominee that he felt was appropriate. It is clear that members are delighted with the appointment of Dr Joe Baker as Commissioner for the Environment.
We had the power, under an amendment to the Act, to disallow that appointment. If you remember, Madam Speaker, it was an amendment that Mr Berry in particular, and later on other Labor members, suggested would make such appointments absolutely impossible. Mr Berry certainly emphasised that in respect of an appointment to ACTTAB. He said that it would be absolutely impossible to find anybody to appoint if they had to go through any kind of process. That has not been the case; nor do I expect that it will be the case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .