Page 2390 - Week 11 - Thursday, 2 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
matter of some debate in the course of discussion on this Bill. It has not been a matter that has been able to be resolved amicably amongst all the parties. It is not a matter that is central to the aim of the Bill, which is to provide a legislative basis for the employment of staff. So I propose to omit that entire part, to delete all reference to ministerial and any other consultants from the Bill.
I believe that we can take up this matter at some later stage and we should not delay the passage of the Bill simply because we cannot reach an amicable arrangement on the question of consultants.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.48): I have no objection to this proposed amendment to the Bill, and in fact will support it, but I just wonder whether in practical terms it will make any difference to the fact that the Chief Minister and her other Ministers are employing consultants. Will those people cease to be employed by the Ministers of the Assembly the minute this motion is adopted?
MR STEVENSON (11.49): This saga of the "Legislative Assembly (Members' Staff Restriction) Bill" is an interesting one. On 27 July this year, the Chief Minister presented the Bill and said that it provided for the employment of consultants and staff by Ministers, certain office holders and members. We all now know that that was absolutely not correct. It did not provide for the use of consultants by members, but basically by Ministers. The presentation speech went on to say:
... the Government demonstrates the belief that Ministers and members should have assistance in key projects.
Once again, that was not correct; it was a misleading statement. In the next paragraph it said:
It is anticipated that this Bill ... will allow greater flexibility.
Certainly not for members, but for Ministers. The next paragraph said:
It is the Government's intention in introducing this Bill to provide individual Ministers and members with the maximum flexibility and autonomy.
Once again, that is not correct. It went on to say:
It will benefit this and subsequent ACT governments. It will benefit the operation of the Assembly and the effectiveness of its members; and it will benefit the people of the ACT by enhancing the capacity of elected officials to respond to public demands.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .