Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 958 ..

MR MOORE (12.11 am): Mr Speaker, despite all Mr Berry's rhetoric, he thinks that perhaps he ought to support an open process now that he is not in government. Now that he is not in government he easily casts around the word “hypocrisy”. The irony in that is not to be missed. The difficulty in comparing this amendment to the legislation that was passed last year, the Statutory Appointments Act, is that the process is very different. The process in the Statutory Appointments Act still leaves in the hands of the Minister a power to make the decision about whom he is going to appoint. The appointment is made only after a process of consultation has been gone though. This is a very different exercise.

It is interesting that the Greens have spent so much of tonight talking about consultation and how many people they have consulted. They met with me only yesterday morning for the first time on this legislation; whereas I certainly had made it my business to meet with quite a number of people on the issues that I wanted to raise. I accept that there was a relatively short time for us to get together and work our way through this legislation.

One of the difficulties in applying the Statutory Appointments Act to this particular corporatised body is that the corporatisation takes effect under a piece of Federal legislation. Mr Hunt informs me that there is some question as to exactly how you would apply the Statutory Appointments Act. It is something that does need to be pursued. In the interim, the Chief Minister has indicated that she will follow those general processes in so far as it is possible. I accept that commitment. The Chief Minister has delivered on the commitments that she has given me on previous occasions. That is why I accept that commitment. I believe that the consultation will occur.

This amendment with its, I must say, unusual way of appointing directors is not the way that I like to go about these things. That does not make it wrong. I accept the intention of the amendment. The intention of the amendment is to ensure a more controlled process. What I am really seeking, Mr Speaker, is a more open process.

MS TUCKER (12.14 am): Mr Moore, I am not quite sure why you think that we did not have time to talk to you. The first time that we contacted you, you said that your position on it was set; so, we did not actually spend a lot of time meeting with you straightaway. But we did talk to you more than once. We attempted to talk to you and were told that you were too busy. We did try.

Mr Moore: I do not believe that that is true. I just do not believe that that is true. I did not tell you that I was too busy. It is just not true, Kerrie.

MS TUCKER: The membership of the board is a very important principle. Mr Osborne has said that he is happy because he has had an assurance that he can nominate someone with a social welfare background.

Mr De Domenico: No; he has not said that.

MS TUCKER: He just said that to me then, actually.

Mrs Carnell: He did not say that he was going to nominate someone.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .