Page 1370 - Week 07 - Thursday, 24 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
normally applied to an animal; and then racist comments. I do not believe in picking on people when they are alone in this chamber without collegiate support. I do not like, as an Australian and as someone who grew up in Wollongong, to see you people kicking this fellow. He can speak for himself on all of those issues, and I do not stand to defend Mr Stevenson.
Mr Speaker, the first thing I wish to state is that the NSG situation in funding, whatever it is, is not the benchmark, and those members should not arrogate to themselves the right to set the standard for this house. The fact is, on the face of it - - -
Mr Duby: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. No-one is suggesting that our funding or levels of staffing are the benchmark.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Duby, you are entering debate. That is not a point of order.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Speaker, I will deal with the Chief Minister's submission. The most revealing part of her submission was a pejorative reference to "company" and "tax", a theme that has gone right through this debate. Mr Speaker, I read from the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 which applies in the other house. It says, at section 4:
A Minister may, with the approval of the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Commonwealth, engage, under an agreement in writing, a natural person -
I presume Mr Duby employs those -
body corporate or partnership as a consultant.
The precedent in the Federal Parliament is to permit the employment of a company or a partnership, and we all know that there are differing tax rules that apply for persons and companies. The fact is, as I understand it on my advice, there is no company employed upstairs and there was no company employed upstairs by Mr Stevenson. He can speak for himself. But were he to have employed a company, there is nothing extraordinary or improper, as was suggested, because the precedent is set in the other house.
The issues that we need to look at in this Assembly in due course, when the Government brings forward its legislation to cover this thing, are the propriety of employing companies; whether the Assembly should set the best standards in the community; avoidance, minimisation and what have you. Those issues can be properly approached in due course when we receive legislation from this Government, and we will debate them. But for the time being it seems only fair, in the best Australian tradition, that we treat this member here, Mr Stevenson, on an equitable footing. If a benchmark has been set by the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .