Page 1403 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 11 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let me get back to my initial point. In terms of the way this Assembly works on most occasions, if it were not for the Liberal Party and the other three non-Government members, a lot of the good things that have been done would not have been done. Let us get it down on the record so that everybody knows what we are talking about.
Mr Lamont: This was about the same time as you were holding up Dr Hewson as the bastion of all things warm and wet in Australia, was it?
MR DE DOMENICO: I look forward to Mr Lamont's intelligent contribution to this debate later on. It is a case of politics at the expense of the public servants. As my colleague so aptly said, Mrs Carnell's Bill offers more protection for the public servants, and for everyone. The Government's viewpoint is to play their own politics at the expense of everybody else, including public servants.
Ms Follett says, "Why did you not show us a copy of the Bill?". We know exactly what the Government's view is when any information is disclosed. Who will ever forget the health budget disclosures in the Canberra Times a couple of years ago? In went the police. One wonders what will happen in the future. Do we send in the tanks next time? That is the Government's view on whistleblowing legislation and protecting public servants.
Mr Humphries made the very good point that the Government's Bill has been drafted, albeit in the last two or three weeks, by the looks of it, under the initial Government view, which was, "We do not think we need one". Based on that, the Government then issued drafting instructions to draft a Bill. Their initial position was, "We do not think we really need one", and the Bill reflects that. Ms Follett's Bill reflects the fact that the Government is being dragged there kicking and screaming, knowing what the numbers are. I acknowledge that Mr Lamont especially can count, and he can count very well.
Mr Lamont: Not as well as you can. I could never turn one vote into four, like you can.
MR DE DOMENICO: The Government is saying, "Let us get a Bill in because it is going to get up anyway". We know that because Mr Connolly publicly said so last year. I will not respond to that interjection because it does not need responding to. Finally, let me say this: Ultimately, it will be this Assembly that decides what is best for the people of the ACT. That is the way it should be and that is the way it will be. When this Assembly decides, we will see, once and for all, whether it is the Liberal Party's and Independents' view of whistleblower legislation that gets up or whether it is the view of Ms Follett, whose initial view was that we did not need a Bill, that gets up.
There is no doubt in the minds of members on this side of the house that it is Mrs Carnell's and the Liberal Party's Bill that is the superior Bill. There was an embryo of the Bill about a year ago and it has been nurtured ever since, with community consultation, public consultation and consultation with those members of this Assembly who showed a real desire to take on board whistleblower legislation. The only party that did not show that desire was the Labor Party. So, for the Labor Party to come in here today and say, "Your Bill is no good; ours is better", is complete and utter humbug and political nonsense. It shows double standards, but we are used to double standards from this Government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .