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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1708 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Again, there is a very broad-ranging list of terms of reference. We assume that development of community service obligations is in respect of the question of the competition policy as it applies to the whole of government. Every arm of the Government is presently developing community service obligations criteria for application in its own area. How much is the process of putting that in place going to be held up by the need to have these matters referred to this monitoring committee, once we get it running?

There is the very small question, but it happens to be important to this Government, of cost. These fora cannot be resourced and funded independently; they have to be resourced from within the Government. We will be operating a committee with, presumably, a significant number of people on it. At least six representational bodies are outlined there; presumably, there will be other Government nominees; presumably, there will be people with broad expertise in the area - that is not mentioned in the motion - local versions of Fred Hilmer; and so on. Those sorts of people need to be on the body. It is going to be a very large body. I say to members in this chamber: Exactly what is going to be the mechanism whereby we fund and resource this thing? It is going to want to do work; it is going to get in reports; it is going to need to hold hearings, presumably, where it gets members of the bureaucracy before it to explain how things are being developed. Maybe Ministers will appear before it; I do not know.

I think it is a pretty poorly thought through proposal all up, Mr Speaker, and I would commend the amendment that is circulated - to refer this matter to the place where we have generally referred monitoring roles, that is, committees of the Assembly, in this case the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I think we are rushing in, and this motion exhibits all the traits of a party that seems to think, on the part of Ms Tucker, that it will stay in opposition for all its life; but I am surprised that the Labor Party, the alternative government of this place, thinks it can live with an operation like this. If they ever happen to get back on these benches with this operation in place, they will find it very awkward to work with.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (4.24): Mr Humphries has delivered us a fairly extraordinary speech.

Mr Humphries: All my speeches are extraordinary.

MR WHITECROSS: Indeed they are, Mr Humphries. "Extraordinary" is the only word that springs immediately to mind. Mr Humphries started off with the proposition that there was something unusual about Ms Follett's suggestion that it was more important that Mr Humphries take notice of the Assembly than of his own bureaucrats. For a lawyer, that is a completely amazing statement from Mr Humphries. Of course you should take more notice of the Assembly, Mr Humphries, because you are accountable to the Assembly and your Government depends on the confidence of the Assembly. That is the constitutional environment in which we live. You are not accountable to your bureaucrats. If you disagree with your bureaucrats, they cannot sack you. If you disagree with the Assembly, they could. That is why you should take notice of what the Assembly and Assembly committees say. That is why you should take it seriously.

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