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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1925 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I am not arguing against some different security arrangements to those that existed before. I certainly have been critical of the fact that anybody was able to wander into the building without being challenged. I continue to take the view that that issue should have been addressed in this process. But, Mr Speaker, the elaborate arrangements made to provide Commonwealth-type security for the ACT Assembly were quite unnecessary. Indeed, it was not thought necessary by those opposite when they were in government. I think there is more than a little element of game playing going on about this, about making life just a little more difficult for the Executive of the day. We know there is a little of that going on in this whole arrangement as well. Mr Speaker, that is the view of my party on that matter.

Let me make one more point, though, about the security budget and about the budget generally for the Assembly. Mr Berry would have us believe that the budget was foisted on the Administration and Procedure Committee without any consultation. He well knows that the budget for 1997-98, as was the budget for 1996-97, was forwarded to the Administration and Procedure Committee for its comment before any decisions were made. Indeed, the proposal that we had put was not challenged by the Administration and Procedure Committee. The budget was accepted, and now we are told that this was foisted on the Administration and Procedure Committee. There is a little inconsistency going on there.

Mr Speaker, my last point is about Mr Prasad and the comments made by Mr Berry in that respect. Mr Berry may disagree with Mr Prasad's report - that is his prerogative - but to suggest that he was primed to make his decisions in advance is a severe insult to and slur on a man who has loyally served a number of governments of different political persuasions for a very long period.

Mr Berry: He should be careful what he says.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, here we have it: The man who does not believe in personal attacks is basically accusing the Government of being able to pay off Mr Prasad and buy him at a certain price to achieve a predetermined result. I do not know what other members of this place think, but I think that is a quite disgraceful act on Mr Berry's part. I would be very happy to remind him of that in other debates, when his chest puffs out and he rises in his place to defend some attack on the integrity of the Australian Labor Party. It does not wash, Mr Berry. In this matter you have very few scruples, and most people in this place can see that fact.

Mr Speaker, I think we ought also put on record when it comes to consultation on the Prasad report, the fact that Mr Berry refused to speak to Mr Prasad. When it was suggested that there be meetings with various members of the Labor Party in this place and members of the staff of the Labor Party in this place, the answer was that all meetings, all contact with the Labor Party and its staff, would have to occur through Mr Whitecross's office and in no other way. (Extension of time granted) I thank members for their indulgence. Mr Speaker, I will be very brief. I table a letter which was sent to all members of the Assembly and in which it was made clear that Mr Prasad was interested in discussing with all members arrangements for reviewing the allocation of staff salaries. This was indicated to members at the very beginning of the process, on 9 July. All members were invited to have those discussions with Mr Prasad.

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