Page 773 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 13 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I cannot promise that we can have this matter resolved by next week. The Government can smell the political wind. If it is the view of the Assembly to pass this Bill in principle, if there is clear Assembly support for the proposition that appointments are subject to scrutiny, the Government obviously would be foolish if it did not proceed with extreme caution in the period between the passage of the Bill in principle and the final solution. It is a significant issue. We understand what Mr Moore intended with his boards. For the first stage in such a radical departure members may be comfortable that we hold it to the boards. Once you go beyond the boards it really does cover a huge gamut of positions, from the Supreme Court judge - I can just imagine the views of the Law Society at Assembly committees going through confirmation hearings for Supreme Court judges - through to the ASO1 position at a comparatively minor level of the administration in a totally non-political area; that because a dog inspector exercises certain statutory powers, Mr Wood has to sign an instrument to appoint the ASO1 to be a dog collector or dog inspector or whatever.
I suggest to members that if you are determined to go down this path, which we suggest is a dangerous and silly path, at least let us take a deep breath after the in-principle stage, adjourn the detail stage and allow the Government to come up with some policy options. Then we will sit around the table and see whether we can come up with something sensible.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.44): It is certainly very clear from Mr Connolly's speech that the ALP really love their bogymen and are not willing to put them aside lightly. The bogyman today is American-style politics and the idea that we should do anything that the Americans do. I think we have heard great exaggeration from the Government about the potential to become like what we would all be happy to call the American circus of congressional appointment committees. I think Mr Connolly does a disservice to the traditions of the Westminster system and also rather exaggerates the extent of interest by members in bringing down statutory appointments. You might bear in mind that in the American system members of Congress are not, generally speaking, potential members of governments. Their role in life is to play that kind of spoiling role. Well, some might be - Mr Connolly points across the chamber - but, for the most part, members have an interest in protecting the integrity of the process because they hope to be overseeing the process themselves, potentially, after the coming election, whatever it might be.
I think it is a gross exaggeration to suggest that members in opposition, whether Labor or Liberal, are going to behave like packs of wild animals, hunting down government appointments, and that in government they are going to dramatically change their point of view. I believe that all members will see the value of having an orderly process, and I believe that Mr Moore's Bill, essentially, does provide that orderly process. What we have seen with Mr Connolly's remarks is a great reaction from the Labor Party to the suggestion that other people should be involved in the processes of making decisions which affect the operation and the functioning of the Territory's important organs of public administration. There is a very totalitarian streak in the ALP in that respect - the desire that all power should rest with the Executive Government; that checks and balances are some sort of nineteenth century anachronism which should be done away with; to get rid of the Independents; do not have any processes that might stop the Government making its decisions; upper houses, oh no, definitely out; viceregal appointments, no way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .