Page 144 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: Once the Star Chamber and character assassinations happen in here - - -
MR MOORE: The favourite term of the Attorney-General is "Star Chamber". In referring to the possibility of a Star Chamber he raises visions of Henry VIII and his Star Chamber court, which was so named because it sat in a room that had stars painted on the ceiling. The Star Chamber was an inquisitorial chamber where the accuser was never known. That is the hysteria that Mr Connolly is attempting to work up.
Mr Connolly: I have actually been referring more regularly, to the Senate system in the United States which is - - -
MR MOORE: He now interjects to say that he is also thinking of the Senate system in the United States. That creates images of McCarthy and of John Proctor in The Crucible, for those of us who know the play. Coming out of the Salem witch-hunts, Proctor says, "Is the accuser always innocent?". That is the sort of imagery that Mr Connolly is trying to whip up. In fact, that is just not likely to be the case at all, because that is not how the system is likely to be approached. Under these circumstances, it is much more likely that we are going to have that sort of controversy in the house afterwards, as indeed we have already seen. It is something that can be avoided through a sensible consultation process through a committee system that is non-partisan and that, I think all members agree, has worked particularly well right through the process.
Mr Berry: Why do you not have a committee to appoint them and take the responsibility as well? Go for your life; take the responsibility.
MR MOORE: Mr Berry interjects, "Why do you not have a committee to appoint them?". After we have used this process for a while, we might be tempted. But the way this Bill is framed at the moment statutory appointments will still be made by the Government. It will still be the Minister's prerogative, after consultation, to make appointments. But before an appointment is made the Minister will know the non-partisan view of a committee. A Minister who decides to appoint somebody for a particular reason and feels that the committee's view is inappropriate will risk debate in this chamber on a disallowance motion.
Disallowance provisions put into legislation on two previous occasions - for the ACTTAB board and for the Commissioner for the Environment - have not caused any trouble. Rather than causing the Star Chamber-style problem, the system does just the opposite. Mr Connolly may well remember the size of the American committee hearings on such appointments and realise that this full chamber is smaller than those Senate hearings. So for a committee to look at statutory appointments is a perfectly reasonable and perfectly rational way to go about it.
This hysteria is not really about the committee system; it is not really about Star Chambers. What it is really about is a fear that executive government may have lost some power. It is not just the power to appoint; it is the power to entrench a view. It is the power to entrench Labor ideology in this case or, in the case of a Liberal government, Liberal ideology. We are talking about taking away the power to entrench that ideology by making long-term statutory appointments that will last well after a government falls.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .