Page 1631 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: Gary, never again a meeting without an independent witness present, I think.
MR HUMPHRIES: If you want me, on behalf of the Opposition, to reply to letters only through other correspondence, that is fine. You should indicate that when you write the letter. If that is the case, that will be the best way of proceeding because we will not have to worry about having our comments or what we might say in a face-to-face conversation misinterpreted. I must say, however, that I think that this place operates only because members can sit down together and talk to each other about what things might or might not transpire here. If members do not have the integrity to be able to sit down and make those comments on a without prejudice basis, we clearly cannot operate on the same basis on which we have operated to date.
Despite Mr Connolly's best efforts, the Opposition is prepared to entertain the idea of putting this matter over until June. Mr Connolly argues that there is some ambiguity in the scheme or the intention that catches the appointments governed by the Bill. As I understand it, he is not suggesting that it is unclear as to which appointments are actually subject to the Bill. It is perfectly clear to me from legislation that I see every day that an appointment is made either by a Minister or by the Executive. It is one or the other. There is no ambiguity or doubt about that. Mr Connolly's objection is that he cannot understand the scheme behind the appointment and why certain appointments should be treated one way and others the other way.
Mr Connolly: And the issue of dual appointments, which is a very complex one.
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes. I do not think you mentioned that in our face to face discussions, Minister. I am sure that you overlooked that. Perhaps you can cover that with the next letter you happen to write to the Opposition. However, Madam Speaker, that matter, it seems to me, is fairly straightforward. Whether Mr Connolly objects to the scheme of the thing or not is another matter. He did not mention that to me; but, fine, he feels that there is some problem with that.
I think he is right when he says that this is landmark legislation and therefore it needs to be considered carefully. If he feels that there is a better arrangement to catch the more important appointments in one way and lesser appointments in another way, I am happy to entertain that thought and to listen to those ideas. Presumably he will draft some amendments to deal with that matter. However, Madam Speaker, I do expect the courtesy of having the Government's views put in a way which we can consider properly. If the Minister wants to discuss this matter, that is fine, but let us do so sensibly and not grandstand about it here in the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Ms Szuty) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .