Page 2377 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
they happen to want this individual in this office, or they think it would be a good thing to have this person in this office. That sort of appointment is not subject to merit principles because it is made on the basis of the government of the day making a decision. It is as simple as that. We all accept that there should be both kinds of appointments under this framework. The question here is whether the appointment of the Clerk of the Assembly should be an appointment under the former or the latter category.
Madam Speaker, it is the contention of the Opposition in this place that the clerk should be, wherever possible, an appointment not subject to political processes. That might seem an ironic statement in the context of a person who services a political body; but it is our view that the person who is selected for the position of clerk should be the best possible person for the job, selected under merit review principles. I accept, Madam Speaker, that that is the process by which we have appointed clerks in the past. That is my understanding. I also understand that that broadly is the process which has been employed in other parliaments - that is, a committee has been established to select the most appropriate person for the position.
Madam Speaker, I think that we serve our community better by making the process both appear to be beyond politics and be actually beyond politics. Applying merit principles of the kind referred to in clause 65, I believe, would be appropriate in the case of the appointment of the Clerk of the Assembly. I am not suggesting that those principles should apply in all respects. Clearly, disciplinary matters are a matter for the Assembly, as is made clear in this division, Division 7, and promotion matters do not really apply since there really is nowhere to be promoted to from the office of clerk anyway. As far as appointment is concerned, it is very clear, in my view and in the view of the Opposition, that the merit principle should apply, and it should be made positively on the basis of those principles applying in clause 65 of the Bill.
I also believe, Madam Speaker, that, in order to ensure that that process is more consensual, it should not have that flavour of politics about it, if that is possible; that the appointment should be one undertaken in consultation not just with you, as Speaker, but also with the appropriate standing committee of the Legislative Assembly, of which, of course, you would be, under most circumstances, a member and, indeed, chairman. Madam Speaker, I submit that this is a better process. It is a fairer process. It produces appointments of a less political nature, a less contentious nature, than would be the case were it to proceed on the basis outlined already in the Bill. I commend that amendment to the house.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, did you want to move amendment No. 11 a bit later? I just want clarification.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, Madam Speaker. That has been withdrawn. I am moving just the one that I have circulated, Madam Speaker. That is all.
MADAM SPEAKER: Fine. That is okay.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .