Page 777 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 13 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of the scrutiny process; but I would ask members to consider that the process to be followed here in this Assembly has yet to be tested. Given the very good work and the fine work of the Assembly standing committees, I cannot see that it is going to be a major difficulty. It is up to the standing committees to decide on the appropriate process in terms of considering appointments. As I have said before, we know that the standing committees of this Assembly have worked well, and we have no reason to believe that the new process will not work well.
The disallowance provisions are appropriate and, where they have been introduced in particular pieces of legislation, as Mr Moore spelt out, they have not proved to be a problem. For example, disallowance provisions were introduced for appointments to the ACTTAB board and for the Commissioner for the Environment, but the appointments were not disallowed in this Assembly. Mr Moore concludes that appointments should be made on merit, and we heard from Mr Humphries that it is the Liberals' intention that such appointments would also be based on merit. To conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, the process proposed by Mr Moore with regard to the determination of statutory appointments is an appropriate one for this Assembly to be considering at this time. The process will ensure greater accountability with the Assembly, a tenet in which both Mr Moore and I strongly believe. I commend the Bill to the Assembly and I look forward to participating in further deliberations about the scope of the Bill.
MR MOORE (11.58), in reply: Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank members who have supported the Bill and then take some time to comment on the issues raised by Terry Connolly. There is no doubt, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is a move away from the Westminster system and that it would be unique to the ACT. It is very interesting that when Labor wants to do something that is not consistent with the Westminster system it is okay, because it is important for us to look ahead and to try in some way to be a leader; but if somebody else wants to do something like that we must rely entirely on the Westminster system. It is appropriate that we take small steps when experimenting with how our system can be developed, which is exactly how the Westminster system itself was developed - by a transition from an advisory body to kings. Therefore, it is appropriate that we also move to improve our systems wherever we can. That is something we ought not be frightened of.
Mr Connolly raised a concern about the broad definition, and he is quite correct. When I originally floated this idea I pointed out that my intention was to take in the appointments that are generally made to boards and certainly not to apply this, as Mr Connolly suggested that his advice indicates, to the appointment, for example, of secretaries of departments. It was a disappointment to me that it did not apply to the Head of Administration. That would have been a useful exercise. I am given to understand that an open process is under way with reference to the appointment of the Head of Administration, although I have not looked at the process. The question for us is whether such a system should apply now right across the spectrum, from the dog collector - an example that Mr Connolly gave - to our judges. I think that is something for us to discuss in a sensible way, which is why I am content to agree to having debate on this Bill adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .