Page 776 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 13 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
particular people they do not like, then that is obviously a matter to be regarded; but I do not believe that it is likely to be the case. I think we are all likely to understand the implications of the process. If particular members who have no interest in being in a future government happen to want to defeat that process, we would have to deal with that by making sure that those sorts of people were not involved in the process of making those appointments or considering those appointments. That is my view on the subject.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I must confess to sharing some of Mr Connolly's reservations about the possible scope of the Bill. I put it on this basis: I need to be persuaded that we should include judges and magistrates in this process. That is not my view at this stage. When this Bill was first explained to me it was not to include judges or magistrates. That is why I considered the Bill from the outset to be a good Bill. On the basis that there is some argument about the scope, I welcome the move to adjourn debate on the Bill so that we can consider exactly what it does cover. I am not saying that I am totally opposed to the concept. I am saying that I need to be convinced about it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this Bill to the house. It will have the support of the Liberal Party because we are not afraid of the processes it opens up. We are not afraid to put up with that process of scrutiny. We believe that it is an emerging part of the role of parliament. If it is the emerging role of parliament only in this Territory, so be it. I think we can provide a process which, whether other States follow it or not, is going to be a good process.
MS SZUTY (11.54): I think it is useful to remind members of what we are talking about. Mr Moore's Bill proposes that all appointments be subject to consultation with an appropriate Assembly standing committee. We are not saying that the Minister involved in the process will not have the ultimate responsibility for the appointment, apart from the disallowance provisions. We are really talking about a consultation process within the committee structure of the Assembly, which we are all familiar with. Mr Moore has provided in his Bill that, if no standing committee is considered appropriate for that purpose, the Public Accounts Committee will have that role. Appointments are to have regard to the recommendations made by the appropriate committee.
The language of the Bill is very much in line with the consultative process that Mr Moore envisages for these appointments. The instruments of appointment will be disallowable instruments. Mr Moore, in his remarks about this Bill, indicated that this is, I guess, a provision of last resort and that most appointments presumably would not get to the stage where they would be disallowed in the Assembly. Mr Moore also said that the Bill does not apply in relation to the appointment of a person to a statutory office the only function of which is to advise the appointing Minister. So provisions have been made for statutory appointments of that kind.
Mr Moore referred in his speech to the controversy about several appointments which have been made during the life of this Assembly and previously, and specifically to appointments to the Pharmacy Board and the Tourism Commission. He did point out some examples of an appropriate process which has been followed in this Assembly. One example was the appointment of Dr Joe Baker, the Commissioner for the Environment. The argument has been put by the Government that people would not feel that they were able to put themselves forward for appointments, perhaps because of fear
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .