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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (10 April) . . Page.. 894 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

be aware, the approach that we took with Mr Prasad was to get an independent person to look at this. It was an attempt to have a relook at a situation that had been allowed to go on for a very long time. We have then allowed what must be close to 12 months for people to input, for people to get used to the new arrangement. The total salary allocation is virtually the same as it has always been. It has been reallocated underneath that.

In fact, the only salary reduction in this place was in the Executive, where we reduced the amount of money that was being spent on salaries. It was a quite significant amount of money in the Executive. However, Mr Speaker, that is not the issue here. Whatever members decide to do on this particular issue, the bottom line here is to make sure that staff can be confident about contracts they enter into, and that contracts are as flexible as possible. Members should understand that there is no way that this house could ever totally agree on the various allocations for staff under a global budget.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (3.46): Mr Speaker, I want to make a couple of short points about the Bill. A number of steps have been taken not just in this Assembly but in the last two Assemblies. Because of the nature of government in the Territory - that is, minority government - there has been a process of essentially shifting power from the hands of the Executive into the hands of the Assembly. I must say that I have been involved in a number of such exercises and I have generally supported the direction of that move. Although the Chief Minister today has put very cogent reasons to reconsider this move, I at least acknowledge that it is within the general trend of giving more power to the Assembly and less to the Executive. I do not know whether the Chief Minister would admit it; but having to make decisions in this area is not a particularly pleasant task, given that, to be quite blunt about it, members' interests are heavily at stake in such situations and they will generally wish to argue very strongly for their office or their personal position. Having someone else make a decision is, in one sense, a matter of some relief.

Mr Speaker, I indicate that my party will oppose the legislation, but we accept that there are some elements of this which reflect longer-term trends within the Assembly and its voting pattern. I do hope that we will avoid an undignified battle on the floor of this Assembly about who gets what resources. Generally speaking, Mr Speaker, I think it is true to say that Chief Ministers in this place, from both sides of the chamber - - -

Mr Berry: Former Chief Ministers.

MR HUMPHRIES: Chief Ministers from both sides of the chamber - that implies former Chief Ministers as well - have acted with some impartiality in the way in which they have administered this system. The report which has generated the present legislation takes from some members of the Government and gives to others; it takes from some members of the Opposition and gives to others; it is kind to some members of the crossbenches and unkind to others. I do not believe that one could construct a particularly persuasive argument that says this is about feathering the nests of the Government or even the major parties vis-a-vis the others, but we can debate that. It is obvious that we are going to have the chance to do so subsequent to the passage of this legislation.

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