Page 1628 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
take place today, and, if he had problems with the Bill or if he had anything he wanted to change, to put the Government's amendments on the table so that they could be debated. He says that he wants to have a debate. This is the time and the place for the debate and you are not ready for it.
Mr Connolly: I want to know what the policy is. Whom do you want to have in and whom do you want to have out?
MR KAINE: Mr Connolly now wants to continue the debate. He has already had his time; now he wants to continue the debate across the floor. Madam Speaker, this exhibits an arrogance on the part of the Government that is not uncommon. The Government has been known to put comprehensive Bills on the table and to expect us to come back in three days' time and debate them fully; and, if we do not like what is in there, to put our amendments on the table. Mr Connolly has had over a month. This Bill was debated in principle on 13 April. If he did not like what is in it, if he thought there were some principles that should be debated, he has had plenty of time to debate them. He believes, obviously, that he has fulfilled his obligation by writing me a letter and telling me that if I have a problem I should come and talk to him about it. That is not the way that I do my business with a private members Bill that belongs to Mr Moore.
Mr Connolly has completely abdicated his responsibility as a member of the Assembly, as a member of the Government, and as the Attorney-General in dealing with this Bill. Now he is saying to us, "There are principles to be resolved and we do not want to debate the Bill today". That is an astonishing response. If Mr Connolly has problems with this Bill - he indicated in his letter, which was dated 19 April, that he had some questions - why did he not resolve the questions and put some amendments on the table in order to amend the Bill, if we agree with him? He has not done that. Mr Connolly deserves to have the Assembly pass this Bill in its present form as put forward by Mr Moore, whether Mr Connolly thinks it is a good thing or not. If he cannot do better than he has done this morning, he does not deserve our support, Madam Speaker.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (10.48): Madam Speaker, I would like to respond briefly to the point that Mr Kaine has made. I am afraid that he has largely missed the point in his eagerness to berate Mr Connolly. The point is, Madam Speaker, that the Bill which Mr Moore has put up, and which the Assembly has already passed in principle, is largely to be implemented by the Government. It is the Government which makes these appointments, whether it is the Executive or the Minister, that the Bill seeks to scrutinise. It seems to me that Mr Connolly has behaved absolutely correctly in seeking to clarify what it is that this Bill requires the Government to do. In other words, what is the scope of this Bill. This is the point which Mr Connolly made. I believe that most members would understand that point. I think it is a shame that Mr Kaine has not.
Madam Speaker, as Mr Connolly said, he has written to the Opposition and to the Independents to seek clarification of the scope of this Bill. I accept that this is not a straightforward matter. There are some hundreds of appointments which are regularly made and which may or may not be covered by this Bill. They cover an enormous scope, as Mr Connolly has indicated. Prior to the amendment which Mr Moore has circulated, the appointments ranged from judges down to some relatively junior appointments which
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .