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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3437 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

patently unfair and patently stupid. Some might think that $40,000 was over the top for some of the ministers at the time, but I do not think so. I think that they were terribly underpaid for the work that they did and the responsibilities they took on. Members should remember that there was the extra responsibility at the time of breaking new ground in a very unpopular self-government system.

There are ways of dealing with these things. The appropriate way is to take them out of constant debate in the Assembly. Yes, move the power to the Assembly, but implement a strategic system. That strikes me as being the thinking behind the Pettit committee in dealing with that approach.

Mr Speaker, if I may, I will now address the amendment that Ms Tucker has foreshadowed. The amendment asks the government to go out and consult on the matter. There is somewhat of an irony there because Ms Tucker constantly criticises the government for the way they consult.

Ms Tucker: Sometimes I congratulate the government on how they consult.

MR MOORE: Ms Tucker interjects that sometimes she does congratulate the government on how it consults. I will have to go back and look at that-

Ms Tucker: Yesterday.

MR SPEAKER: Order! You will have the opportunity to respond, Ms Tucker.

MR MOORE: I do not recall such a comment, although Ms Tucker has indicated that she even said it as recently as yesterday.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that one of the things that we have to learn to do here is to consult properly. We will go back to Yarralumla, I am sure. Being quite frank, I think the consultation was entirely inadequate. I have criticism of the consultation in some other areas. But I think that we do have to come to the point where we recognise that there is a limit to the number of consultations we ought to have, particularly in a hierarchy of consultation. We have been through a consultation process associated with an Assembly committee and it seems to me hardly appropriate to go out to yet another process. It can only be effectively a lower level consultation process.

I think that it is worth considering by us, not just for this situation but generally, at what point does the process of consultation get undermined by yet another process of consultation. It is simply not necessary, Mr Speaker. Each and every one of us here knows what needs to be done.

Ms Tucker: They voted for more consultation; talk to them.

MR MOORE: Consultation is important. I hear Ms Tucker saying that both of the parties want consultation. We must remember that in policy implementation terms there are three ways of going about your actions. One is to go for it, one is to oppose it and one is to delay. One of the most effective methods of delay is consultation. That is not to say that consultation does not have an important part in policy implementation as well; of course it does. But it is also an effective way of causing delay.

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