Page 1629 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
are made by Ministers and/or by the Executive. There are also a number of statutory offices which are filled by public servants. These are called dual office-holders. There is currently a review of those positions being conducted. It seems to me that that is another matter which would need to be clarified.
I accept the intention of this Bill. I understand what it is. The Government has nothing to hide. I have no fear of this Bill. It does change the normal power structure in that appointments which have been the sole prerogative of the Executive and/or a Minister now become in many ways the prerogative of this Assembly. I understand that, and I understand the intention. However, Madam Speaker, as a government we have taken the position that even the most senior agency head positions are advertised and filled on a merit selection process. As I say, we have nothing to hide. I believe that the processes we have used in filling those kinds of positions are entirely defensible. There is work going on. A great deal of the work that needs to be done on this matter is being done in much the same area that has had carriage of the public service Bill, which I recently presented to the Assembly, and the consequential provisions Bill. That has been an enormous amount of work. If there has been some delay in this process of review of statutory positions, I think that that is an entirely reasonable excuse.
I do stress to members that this is not a straightforward, black-and-white matter. Members have my undertaking that I am prepared to consult with them on the coverage of this Bill. I do not share Mr Kaine's view that it is for Mr Moore alone to say what that coverage is. There are matters on which the Government and, indeed, all members, including Mr Moore, would need to take advice because, as I say, there are some hundreds of these positions. Madam Speaker, in seeking a little more time to consider these matters, I support the approach that Mr Connolly has taken. I believe that we need a considered response to the question of the scope of this Bill, and I am, as I say, perfectly prepared to involve other members in coming to some agreed position on that scope.
MR MOORE (10.52): Madam Speaker, in speaking to this clause I would like to begin by clarifying how the Bill works and why the Bill, as tabled, did not cover judges. Quite clearly, Madam Speaker, it deals with the power of a Minister to appoint a person. That is clear from clause 4. My attention was drawn by the Auditor-General to the fact that this did not include the Auditor-General. Therefore I had an amendment drawn up to take in the appointment of the Auditor-General. I circulated that amendment in the spirit that Mr Connolly is talking about, a consultative spirit. I said, "Here we are; this will now take into account the Auditor-General". Mr Connolly came back to me and said, "Ah, yes; it also includes judges". The first amendment I circulated, although it has not been tabled, would include judges and others. Having realised that that was the case, I then had a second amendment drawn up - it was on members' desks when they came in this morning - to specifically include the Auditor-General but nobody else appointed by the Executive. The intention was to replace that amendment with the other amendment. So, Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that we would not be taking into account appointments such as judges, magistrates and so forth.
Mr Connolly also made the point that this is landmark legislation; that it probably has not been done anywhere else, even in the Commonwealth, and therefore we need to proceed particularly carefully. I balance that against the frustration I feel. This legislation was tabled in February, as I recall, and we indicated to the Government that we wished to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .