Page 1624 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
STATUTORY APPOINTMENTS BILL 1994
Detail Stage
Clause 1
Debate resumed from 13 April 1994.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (10.34): Madam Speaker, this legislation has been agreed to in principle by this Assembly. The Government accepts that, while we had objections to it in principle, it has been passed. It is now clearly the will of the Assembly that the Assembly have a role in various appointments by the Government. We are not in a position at the moment to comment constructively or to offer better amendments than the amendments that have been proposed by Mr Moore. For that reason the Government will open the debate and will be suggesting that we think hard about this and try to come up with a workable model. I am not stalling for time. We made it very clear in the first debate that, as it is clearly the will of the Assembly that the Assembly have a role in appointments, in the interim period, between agreement in principle and final passage of the Bill, any Minister who makes an appointment that might be criticised by any of you as appointing a mate would be a very bold Minister indeed. Obviously, the Assembly would have something to say about that. We are not stalling for time. What we are saying is that we need to get this right.
The history of the legislation, as members will recall, is that when it was first proposed by Mr Moore he was talking about committees and boards. Indeed, he named a number of committees and boards. There was a public policy that the Assembly should have a role in vetting appointments to committees and boards. There was some politicking about jobs for the boys and all of that, and you attacked us and we attacked you. The general understanding was that we were talking about boards and committees. The Bill, as introduced, is far broader than that. The Bill, as introduced, covers everything. It covers the appointment of judges, and there seems to be general agreement that that is undesirable.
Mr Moore: No, that is not right. It was the amendment that I flagged.
MR CONNOLLY: The Bill, as introduced, covered, in my view, on my understanding, everything, including judges. There seems to be general agreement that that is undesirable and I saw in the paper this morning that the Chief Justice of Australia is saying that. I am trying to be constructive, Mr Moore; I am not trying to play politics. We had some discussions with Mr Moore about that, and Mr Moore is proposing some amendments which have the effect - - -
Mr Kaine: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is the Minister speaking to clause 1 of this Bill or is he retraversing the in-principle debate on it?
MADAM SPEAKER: I think he is speaking on clause 1, Mr Kaine.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .