Page 1626 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is a very strong argument that, should this Assembly pass the Public Sector Management Bill in its current form, a lot of these dual appointments, where you have a merit selection process for a public service position and then the Minister signs a piece of paper, may well be resolved. What I am saying to members is that you have agreed in principle that you should have a role in vetting appointments, and the Government respects that, and the Government will act extraordinarily cautiously in the period until we resolve what appointments should be covered. We have acted in good faith. We have written to members seeking views on who should be in and who should be out. I have received a round number of replies to that letter; I have received not a single response, although I have had some - - -
Mr Kaine: Because it is not your Bill. Have you forgotten? It is Mr Moore's Bill.
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Kaine, we are trying to be constructive. You have this oppositionist mentality over there. You cannot adopt a collegiate approach. Mrs Carnell made fancy statements about collegiatism. Having been defeated at the in-principle stage, it would be hard for a government to act more collegiately than to write to every member and say, "Can we work out something that is meaningful as to who is in and who is out? Can we clarify the policy position?". There is a problem with the Bill as it is currently before the Assembly. The amendment that Mr Moore circulated clarifies that the Auditor-General should be in. Most people would probably think that the Auditor-General should be in, given that the Auditor-General reports to the parliament.
I am sorry; I have had one response to my letter. I had a response from Mrs Carnell saying that Mr Humphries is handling the matter, which did not actually help me as to what the policy should be. I have had some discussions with Mr Humphries and Mr Moore, urging on them that we need to come out with something sensible. To date we do not have it. We do not know how far we go in terms of - - -
Mr Humphries: In your view. In your view that is the case.
MR CONNOLLY: Madam Speaker, the amendment which has been circulated and the Bill before the Assembly mean that ministerial appointments are in, and Executive appointments but for the Auditor-General are out; but nobody knows what is a ministerial appointment and what is an Executive appointment.
Mr Kaine: Where are your amendments?
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Kaine says, blusteringly, "Where are your amendments?".
Mr Kaine: I did not say it blusteringly. You are being very bombastic. Where are your amendments?
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Kaine, I wanted to discuss this with all members of the Assembly so that we could agree on the policy question. The general way to make good laws, Mr Kaine, is to clarify in one's mind what the policy should be and then to draft the amendment around the policy. What I am saying to members is this: "You have agreed in principle that the Assembly has a role in appointments. Fine, that is a given. What appointments?".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .