Page 201 - Week 01 - Thursday, 15 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
it would be unfair to appoint a group of new members and then announce we were going to review their authority. It is the view of the Government that the incumbents are best placed to assist with that wide-ranging and searching review of GALA. I am sure the community agrees with that process. The fact is that Mr Hedley's appointment to GALA was continued in the context that he will be available to assist with the review and necessary inquiries into GALA.
MR MOORE: I have a supplementary question. Are you, as Attorney-General, satisfied that all appointees by the Liberal Alliance Government to boards and statutory authorities are not currently, nor ever have been, in receipt of inappropriate material benefit as an outcome of decisions which potentially they may have influenced?
MR COLLAERY: Mr Speaker, the standing orders indicate that the Attorney cannot be asked legal opinions in question time or on the floor of this Assembly.
MR MOORE: That is not a legal opinion.
Mr Whalan: I would never ask you for a legal opinion on anything.
MR COLLAERY: My ethical restraints, Mr Speaker, would prevent me offering any legal advice to Mr Whalan. Mr Moore, the answer to your question - - -
Mr Whalan: Any advice from you, Bernard, would not be worth a pinch of the old proverbial.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR COLLAERY: I do not take lost causes on. Mr Speaker, the short answer to the question is that if Mr Moore has any evidence that suggests that there are any breaches of any arrangements that go beyond normal acceptable conventions in the appointments that this Government is making, he might care to outline them, either to myself or to the Chief Minister.
Ministerial Propriety
MR BERRY: My question is directed to the Chief Minister, Trevor Kaine, as the Minister responsible for the ministerial propriety of his appointed Ministers. I refer to a meeting in a Government member's office on Monday, 5 February. The physical examination of a young child was conducted in the office of Mr Prowse and it was attended by Mr Humphries. It was to determine whether an experiment conducted by Mr Prowse had resulted in a cure for a skin rash. Was the Chief Minister aware of Mr Humphries' involvement in the experiment and does the attendance by Mr Humphries indicate that the Government will be represented in any future experiments Mr Speaker may wish to carry out to justify his anti-fluoride stance?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .