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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1922 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

The first point I would like to raise is that there was no consultation from this open and consultative Government regarding the terms of reference of the review or the appointment of Mr Prasad as the consultant. I think the two important points that ought to have been dealt with in the first place are proper consultation and dealing with an issue at the contemplative stage. The Government did not do that. They made a political judgment to deal with this issue and decided upon the terms of reference; they decided on the outcome they wanted; and they appointed a consultant who would deliver the outcome.

The first advice that we received - that is, that Labor received - that the $29,500 review was to be carried out came after Mr Prasad had started work. There was no prior consultation with members' staff or with their unions. Indeed, there had been no formal discussion of members' salary allocations since November 1995. This was a politically inspired move, Mr Speaker. In that environment, it would be difficult for any worthwhile review to be carried out. The exercise was further flawed by the very short timeframe in which Mr Prasad was required to work. The Chief Minister's advice of the consultancy was received on 9 July 1996, and the deadline - slightly extended - was 31 July. Mr Prasad was not in the Assembly on a sitting day, for heaven's sake. How can he conduct a review of members' salary allocations when he does not even turn up to the Assembly on a sitting day to see exactly what happens? Not once! That review clearly started out with an objective.

The outcomes for non-Executive members are premised on the belief that the current situation in relation to staffing for Executive members is correct. Mr Moore said - I think it is in Hansard - that in the report a number of Executive staff members were left out of this review. Of course, that is true. Mr Speaker, there is another example of Mr Prasad not approaching the issue as openly as he ought to have. The Prasad report was shallow; it had objectives set from the outset; and it was not established with proper consultation before it commenced.

MR SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. I remind members that they each have two periods not exceeding 10 minutes for each part of this budget debate.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (10.50): Mr Speaker, I rise to answer some comments made by Mr Berry in this debate. Let me refer, first of all, to the question of security arrangements in the Assembly. The Liberal Party's view remains that the adoption of new security arrangements had the unfortunate effect of making access to members of this Assembly more difficult and in a way which we believe, and continue to believe, is difficult to justify. It is true, of course, that members of my staff and perhaps of other members' staff - I do not know - have expressed the view in the past that security in the Assembly left something to be desired. I make no secret of that. In certain respects I think there were arguments for new arrangements to be put in place. However, it is drawing a longbow, on Mr Berry's part, to suggest that, because staff of certain members of this place asked for a review of security arrangements, those staff members and, indeed, those members were lumbered with the result that came forward from the Administration and Procedure Committee in whatever form that might have been.

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