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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3331 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I have no difficulty in supporting this sort of legislation because it is a discipline, I believe, that the Public Service ought to be able to get used to. Having those appointments come through in sufficient time for Ministers to be able to put them before committees in time has been a problem. It has embarrassed me, in the past, to have to do that, and I think that this legislation will ensure it does not have to happen like that. I urge members to support it. The richness of the irony cannot be lost on members who served in the previous Assembly and who note that the party which regaled us with stories about how the world was going to end with this legislation is now wanting to extend it to make its effect more wide-reaching than was the case in the past.

Mr Berry: Well, just support it.

MR HUMPHRIES: We are going to.

MS TUCKER (10.40): The Greens will be supporting this Bill. The committees obviously play many important roles in the Assembly and we do respect the need for consultation. My involvement in the Social Policy Committee has been slightly frustrating because we often have been presented with information with very little time to consult. So I do support the essence of it. As Ms Follett said in her presentation speech, if we are going to involve committees in the process of government it must be in a meaningful way and not just tokenistic. This Bill is part of an ongoing process of improving the role of committees in the parliamentary process and improving communication flows.

There is a general comment I would make about statutory appointments to boards. Over my first 18 months it has concerned me how many times the same people sit on a number of different boards and committees. There are obviously advantages and disadvantages in having the same people involved in many consultative forums. It does help in the consistency of policy-making and advice across different sectors. But I also have to say that I wonder sometimes how these individuals can possibly fit it all in. Perhaps it would be useful to go more widely, not only to have a more balanced input but also because of the logistics of making this work possible for one person. I do not think I have anything else to say, except that I am interested to hear of the history of this issue. I will not make a comment on it. Mr Moore surely will.

MR MOORE (10.42): Mr Moore would love to take the opportunity to do so, Mr Speaker. I support this improvement to the Statutory Appointments Act. I do not need to elaborate further on what Mr Humphries has identified in terms of the approach of the Labor Party. Rather, I am pleased to see that at least some members of the Labor Party have come round to appreciating what this does or just accepting that it is there and saying, "Since it is in place, let us improve it".

Mr Berry: It was unnecessary under Labor, but it is necessary under this lot.

MR MOORE: Mr Berry interjects, "It was unnecessary under Labor, but it is necessary under the Liberals". I presume he says that because he knows the well-known statement about Libs and their mates. I suppose that is what it is. No, Mr Berry, it is not the Libs who have been known to give jobs to their mates.

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