Page 1694 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Chief Minister rolls her eyes. I have heard nothing from the Chief Minister that would suggest that this should change. I understand why the Chief Minister rolls her eyes. It is tedious for her to listen to somebody make suggestions that do not go along with the way the Labor Party would like to operate things. This is one of the reasons why I rail long and loud and hard against politicians and centralised power. It goes to people's heads. We need to make sure that we have appropriate limits to power. Unfortunately, if you do not limit people's power they get the idea that they are all-important and become addicted to it and feed on it. So I can understand that some people think it is tedious when they hear another viewpoint, but it is a perfect reason why we should be wary about what powers we give.
It is suggested by Mr Berry that this is really nothing; it is not very important; it is just a little thing; we hardly need to be discussing it; let us just do it. But that is not the case. I believe that we would set a precedent for giving certain rights within this Assembly to someone else. That may be the way some members want to go. I am not sure that the Liberal Party has clean hands on this one, although they did not try to bring in their assistant ministerial senior or No. 1 advisers - I would be happy to use the correct title, but I forget what it was - and ask for them to be given extra rights in the parliament. I recall certain Labor members standing up then and saying that this was not okay. Once again, is there a rule for the ones with power that changes when they do not have it or is there some consistency? The vote will answer this one.
MR KAINE (4.41): Madam Speaker, Mr Berry put this motion on the table and indicated that in his view it was trivial; that it did not really matter very much. The sad thing about it is that I understand that two of the Independents are going to support this motion because they too believe that it is trivial. I do not think it is trivial. What we have here, when you examine it, is an attempt by the Government to amend the standing orders of this place entirely to suit themselves.
I question very much whether it is a legitimate matter to be incorporated in our standing orders anyway. It says that the Chief Minister may appoint this person. What the Chief Minister can or cannot do ought not to be embedded in the standing orders of this Assembly, in my view. It is totally inappropriate for this Assembly to incorporate in its standing orders a provision that the Chief Minister may or may not do something. Apart from anything else, that gives the Chief Minister a standing above and beyond anything that our standing orders have provided for in the past.
If we permit this to happen, the second thing it will do is to give this new person the same standing as the officers of this Assembly. This person, whoever it is, will be recognised and the office will be recognised by the standing orders of the Assembly. There is no person, other than the members of the Executive and the officers of this organisation, who is so recognised. To put it forward as something that is trivial that we can pass without a problem is a misrepresentation of the case. The Assembly ought to consider very carefully before it changes its standing orders to provide for someone to do something like this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .