Page 2328 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
preference, if he still wished to proceed down that line, it would happen. He could still do so. He made a choice. He indicated to me that he had made a choice to accept the position that the Government had put, because further information, I presume, had been presented to him. Madam Speaker, if Mr Kaine had been listening carefully, and I hope that he is listening now while I clarify that decision, as of yesterday the DPP had that choice in front of him. He has made the choice, with that knowledge.
MR STEVENSON (12.04): Madam Speaker, it is important and proper that we discuss the independence of such groups. There should be no suggestion that that is not right. This is one of the most vital areas that we could discuss, because of the accountability factor and the law. There is no doubt that the DPP had a strongly preferred position that his area be independent of this Public Sector Management Bill. He did have a fall-back position, as Mr Kaine mentioned. It was not his preferred position.
I am surprised about Mr Moore's report that the DPP has changed his preferred position. Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with the DPP since I discussed it with him yesterday. This is one of the many concerns that we have in moving the Bill through so rapidly. If the debate had been adjourned I would have had time to discuss the matter again with the DPP. If he has knowingly and willingly changed his earlier preferred position to another position, I am perfectly happy to agree with that. I have not had the opportunity to discuss it and I think that is unfortunate.
Mr Connolly mentioned how things operate in Tasmania and said that he has never heard of any concerns about independence. That reminded me of a New South Wales public health official who reported to a council inquiry into fluoridation. They were looking at the cancer connection of fluoride. She said that two senior research scientists in the CSIRO had not found any correlation between cancer and fluoride. It came out later on that they had not found any connection, but I have seen statements from the two senior research scientists saying that they had never looked for one. They probably had not found connections with hundreds of things they had never looked for either.
I do not disagree with the Attorney-General's statement, but if he is presenting such a viewpoint it would be handy to know whether he has had discussions with relevant people about this matter and found that not only were there no concerns but that it was working well. If he has an opportunity, he might say that rather than simply saying that he has not heard of any concerns. The point is: Were there any voiced? While we agree that the DPP or certain people within some bodies should be exempt, is it okay for their staff not to be exempt? I have never quite gotten around the independence factor. If you say that it is important for part of the service to be independent but not for their staff to be independent, I can think of many situations where that would conflict. I would have liked a greater opportunity to go into that matter.
Mr Connolly says that there were hysterical claims about independence. I presume that one of the factors he was talking about was the advertisement that appeared in the paper. Mr Connolly nods. It is important to look at who put their names underneath that advertisement. There was certainly a representative of ACTCOSS. Perhaps it was the first time that those groups had been linked on anything. It is unfortunate that Mr Connolly calls that action hysterical. It is vital that there is independence in these areas, and the Government has not said otherwise. They say that it is important.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .