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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 103 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I sympathise with the intent of Mr Osborne's motion. Paragraph (4), I would suggest, is redundant. We have already advertised. If Mr Osborne had listened yesterday, he would have heard me say that we have advertised an extra four positions within the Parliamentary Counsel's Office. Those positions, I hope, will become available very soon. If the people who answered the advertisements are not already trained draftspeople - and that is quite possible because draftspeople are a rare commodity in this country and it is unlikely, I suspect, that we are going to get a lot of applications from qualified draftspeople from other offices or other places in Australia - then naturally we will have to train those people up to the level of competency which is required for work within the ACT. That may not result in their being fully effective immediately. However, we are prepared to do that and make sure that happens at the earliest opportunity.

I want to emphasise a couple of points. It is not just members of the crossbenches who suffer when a dip in resources occurs for reasons beyond the control of the Government. The Government also has a large amount of business which it has had to delay or put back because of this reduction in resources. I do not pretend that it is just non-Government members who suffer in that respect. I have always been an extensive user of the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, both in government and in opposition. In opposition I have always been very keen to ensure the right of non-Government members to have access to parliamentary counsel, and I still am. The Government has moved, therefore, to increase the resourcing available to the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, to protect that resource for all members of the Assembly. The Government would not and does not ever argue that the Parliamentary Counsel's Office is reserved or exclusively for the work of the Government. It is for the work of all members and must operate on that basis.

Mr Osborne says that my plan to improve resources is unacceptable. I do not believe that any other plan will work. Mr Osborne makes a suggestion and Mr Moore makes a suggestion. Mr Osborne says that we should cease doing drafting work for Norfolk Island. To the best of my knowledge, a small amount of drafting work was done for Norfolk Island some time ago. I do not believe that at the moment any ongoing work is being done for Norfolk Island. Even if a very small amount has been done in recent times, it would not have made any difference to the overall capacity of the office. I can assure members that we would do work for another jurisdiction only if we had surplus capacity. If Norfolk Island approached the Government to do work for it, we would have to say that we do not have the capacity to do it.

Mr Moore suggested that, in effect, we should reduce the amount of work available to Government members as well in order to facilitate more work for non-Government members. That has in fact already occurred. In order to meet the requirements of all members the Government has already had to restrict the amount of work that it does for its own requirements. We have not taken the view that we should do all the Government's work and then give what time is left over to non-Government members. That has not been the case. I hope members will be - - -

Mr Osborne: Why is my stuff not getting done?

MR HUMPHRIES: Because resources are not available.

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