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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4759 ..

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I made it very clear that no interstate agreement with regard to taxation reform had been signed. In fact, the principles that were agreed to, Mr Speaker, were agreed by all States, from memory, including New South Wales; so, they had very little to do with a GST.

MR MOORE (4.34), in reply: Mr Speaker, it is interesting that this sort of debate should occur at this stage, because I think Mr Humphries put his finger on the nub of what I am trying to achieve when he said that the Statutory Appointments Act, to which I do enjoy comparing this, has actually led to a series of changes. What has happened is that on a number of occasions Mr Humphries, in particular, and other Ministers have gone beyond what is required in the Act and have consulted on certain appointments. One of the most notable recent ones of those was the appointment of a judge to the Supreme Court. There are other examples of Mr Humphries, in particular, going beyond the requirements of the Act, because he consults broadly with members rather than just, as the Act requires, consulting with the appropriate standing committee of the Assembly.

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that the reason that that goes to the nub of it is that what you are seeing is a cultural change in the way people operate and the way they do things. It is fair to say that some Ministers of this Assembly have consulted with other members. Mr Humphries gave a couple of examples. I can think of other examples of how I have been consulted and given quite detailed briefings on what is likely to happen at ministerial conferences where I have some interests. There is no doubt that that has been going on.

What I want to do by this legislation is to ensure that the culture is established. I am delighted to hear such widespread support from the Assembly. All that will happen under this legislation is that there will be four requirements for a Minister to meet: First, to write to all members; secondly, to consult with the appropriate committee of the Assembly; thirdly, to take into account any committee recommendations; and, fourthly, to report back in writing to all MLAs following the meeting. I imagine that on many occasions that will be done by tabling reports in the Assembly as well.

Mr Speaker, there are exemptions in the Bill that deal with urgency or public interest and there are specific exemptions in the Schedule. In this instance, the Schedule lists the National Crime Authority and, if my amendment is passed, the Loan Council of the Premiers Conference. It seems to me that this is landmark legislation that will be part of that evolutionary process of change that is going on, to ensure that this particular chamber is the most advanced chamber in Australia in the way we deal with our legislation and the way we deal with our agreements. I must say that it compares favourably with almost any local council that I am aware of as well. We are becoming more consultative, more open and more inclined to work together.

I see this sort of change as being important in ensuring that this Assembly does remain at the forefront of democratic processes. It is something that I think each and every one of us can be proud of, because we have all played a part in it in some way at different times. I think we can continue down this path. It is not appropriate for any member of this Assembly to say, as indeed I heard one saying last night on television, that this Assembly does not work very well. It works extremely well compared with other parliaments

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