Page 1693 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: No, it is not about that at all. You people are carrying on about that. I can recall a few years ago when there was tremendous angst on that side of the chamber - that is, the Labor side of the chamber - about the fact that a certain government was appointing people called executive deputies and that those people, ordinary backbenchers who were not Government Ministers, had certain responsibilities and should not have those responsibilities. How dare those people have particular responsibilities that were not there for other backbench members of the Assembly! They were de facto Ministers. What we are doing here is appointing people to particular positions, giving them a name in the standing orders of the Assembly, giving them additional rights referred to in the standing orders to do things which others cannot do, and giving them extra money to boot - putting $11,000 extra their way to make the whole situation a little more palatable for those people now on the back bench.
You are hypocrites; you are absolute, sheer hypocrites. You did not think that executive deputies should exist, but now you are saying, "Yes, we need a Manager of Government Business. It is a very important position to have in this Government, absolutely". Madam Speaker, there is nothing significantly important about this position at all. Mr Berry wants to feel that he is still a big fish in a small pond, and he is getting the change in standing orders that will allow him to do that. What is worse, his colleagues on the Government benches want to make his path a little smoother as well by saying, "We do not want too much flak. Wayne can have these extra powers. He can bob up and pretend that he is a de facto Minister by moving that the Assembly do now adjourn. Mr Berry can jump up and table a paper without having to get leave". That is the kind of stupidity we are talking about here.
It is a matter of considerable frivolity to many people out there in the community that these sorts of extra rights ought to get shoved someone's way because they have lost an entitlement and they feel that it is their right to be able to keep those entitlements, having been a Minister. I think there is nothing more or less to this than making Wayne Berry feel comfortable. It is a matter of looking after your own, the kind of making sure that the mates are okay that the Australian Labor Party is pretty famous for. I think the people of the ACT see that very clearly for what it is.
MR STEVENSON (4.38): I asked Mr Berry earlier, when he mentioned the motion to me, what the situation was in other parliaments throughout Australia. He will have an opportunity to mention that, but my understanding is that this position does not exist. I ask: What reason is there for us to change the way this parliament operates to some degree in order to introduce a new position for which we have not yet heard any valid reason?
One could suggest that in this Assembly it would be handy if all members, all 17 of us, had equal powers, and one could raise a good argument for that. We have all been elected; we are all public servants. Why should some have greater powers than others in this Assembly when we all have matters to present? One could equally raise that argument, and I am sure that some people would say that that is not a good argument. The same could be said, and it has been said by Mr Humphries, about the Manager of Government Business having ministerial powers in the tabling of certain documents and so on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .