Page 2155 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In his paper, Mr Berry advocates several reforms to the appropriation process for the Assembly. He advocates that the administration and procedure committee should be closely consulted on the budget of the Assembly and this consultation should include consultation with all members. Mr Berry also advocates alternatives that would diminish the power of cabinet to decide which proposals are incorporated into the appropriation for the Assembly. One suggestion, as you know, Mr Speaker, that you put forward was to have the administration and procedure committee develop the budget for the Assembly and to remove the power of the executive to amend this budget. It was noted that there would still be scope under this arrangement for the Treasurer to discuss any concerns with the Speaker and the committee. These measures are designed, as I said, to liberate the Assembly from the prerogative of the executive. (Second speaking period taken.)
This approach is at odds with the current practice of budgetary allocation for the Assembly. The current approach is still very much in the hands of the cabinet. It has the power to determine which activities of the Assembly will be funded and which will not be supported. Whilst the opposition has not developed a formal view in relation to the principles outlined, speaking on a personal basis, I think it makes a lot of sense, whoever is in power, to ensure that we preserve the integrity of this democratic institution. It is one that I would want to see advocated. I urge the Chief Minister and Treasurer to give regard to the paper you have delivered, Mr Speaker, and the solution that is advanced there to some of the many concerns I have raised.
I am probably going on my own here. I continue to say that whilst I understand there are risks to members—I have encountered them and others have—I am still concerned that the heightened security arrangements in this place are only further isolating MLAs from the people we seek to represent. There are two factors that were remarkably against interaction with the public. One is accessing this building. I am aware of the reports, and the Clerk briefed me confidentially on one of those which compelled him to recommend certain courses of action on security. I understand that, but it frustrates me that this place, as we look around the gallery, has very few of the third of a million people that we represent in this city.
The other issue that I believe contributes heavily against our involvement with the public is, of course, the sitting hours. Whilst I have heard all the views about family-friendly hours, somebody who was in here the night we were debating the planning legislation said to me, “This is the first chance I have had to come in here and listen because, like most people, I am at work when you are sitting and you have all gone home by the time I can come in here and listen to debates.” In my early days in politics my visits to the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council in Hobart were almost invariably at night because, like other people, I had employment and it gave me a chance to hear what was going on, meet with members and so on. It is something that ought to be revisited. I know that is not necessarily a populist position, but it is one that I would be happy to see happen. I think the inconvenience for members is more than outweighed by the opportunity to try to have some level of public involvement.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .