Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (14 December) . . Page.. 3026 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

processes and by the sympathetic attitude of at least some members of the executive governments who represented COAG and SCAG, including our own Attorney-General. Delegates attending the conference are optimistic that a workable model for scrutiny of national scheme legislation can be found by working cooperatively with those bodies. It is all set out in the report.

EXECUTIVE BUSINESS - PRECEDENCE

Motion (by Mr Humphries) agreed to:

That Executive business be called on forthwith.

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL BILL 1995

[COGNATE BILL:

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL (CONSEQUENTIAL AND
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1995]

Debate resumed from 23 November 1995, on motion by Mrs Carnell:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day No. 2, the Remuneration Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1995? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No. 1 they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 2.

MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (11.45): I do not think it will come as any surprise to members of the Assembly to know that the Labor Opposition will be opposing both of these Bills in principle. We do so for a number of reasons, Mr Speaker. The principal reason is that the creation of a separate Remuneration Tribunal for the ACT is, in my view, a clear duplication of services. It seems to me that where you do have such a clear duplication of services there can be no very good reason for creating an additional body. Not only is it a duplication of services; it is also a quite expensive duplication. There will be additional costs to the Territory involved. We keep hearing from the Government how short they are of money; but, when it suits them, they are only too profligate with the Territory's funds. So, as I say, we do regard it as an unnecessary duplication of the existing mechanisms for determining remuneration to be paid not just to MLAs but also to statutory office-holders and senior public servants.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .