Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 23 February 2010) . . Page.. 430 ..
The following petition was lodged for presentation, by Mr Rattenbury, from 26 residents:
Parking—Braddon—petition No 107
To the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory
This petition of certain residents of the Australian Capital Territory, who are members of the Canberra City Bowling Club, guests of the Canberra City Bowling Club and residents of Braddon, draws to the attention of the Assembly that: Parking arrangements in Elder and Farrer Streets Braddon are to be changed from the existing 3 and 4 hour duration to 2 hours duration.
Your petitioners therefore request the Assembly to rescind any changes and keep the parking durations at their present level.
The Clerk having announced that the terms of the petition would be recorded in Hansard and a copy referred to the appropriate minister for response pursuant to standing order 100, the petition was received.
Statement by Speaker
MR SPEAKER: Members, we now move to a matter of privilege that has been raised with me.
On Friday, 19 February 2010, Mrs Dunne, in accordance with standing order 276, gave written notice of what she considered to be a breach of privilege. The matter relates to an allegation that the Managing Director of Actew Corporation knowingly gave false information to an Assembly committee when answering a question.
Under the provisions of standing order 276, the Speaker must determine as soon as practicable whether or not a matter of privilege merits precedence over other business. If, in the Speaker’s opinion, the matter does merit precedence, the Speaker must inform the Assembly of the decision and the member who raised the matter may move a motion without notice forthwith to refer the matter to a select committee appointed by the Assembly for that purpose.
The Speaker is not required to judge whether there has been a breach of privilege or a contempt of the Assembly. He or she can only judge whether a matter merits precedence based on criteria set down in standing order 279.
As I was in attendance at hearings in relation to both committees in which this matter arose, and as I have made public statements on this issue, I considered that it would be appropriate that the matter be referred to the Deputy Speaker for determination. The Deputy Speaker has informed me this morning that, in her opinion, the matter satisfies the requirements of standing order 279.