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

None . . Page.. 1073 ..

I think there is room for a little bit of reallocation of the workload between the Planning and Environment Committee and the Tourism Committee. What Mr Moore is proposing here is an eminently suitable way of adjusting that workload, and I am happy to take on the additional workload in the redesignated Tourism Committee.

MS TUCKER (11.30): Mr Speaker, we are not happy with the motion as it stands. We want to see the result of a review of whether or not planning and environment should stay in one committee, which will occur later on. For that reason, we want to see science and technology kept where it is. I will be moving two amendments to this motion, to keep science and technology in the Planning and Environment Committee at the moment, that is, to omit the references to science and technology, and to leave as they are the words covering the move of economic development into the Tourism Committee. If that is possible, we would be prepared to support the motion. I seek leave to move two amendments to Mr Moore's motion.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I move:

Subparagraph (1)(b), omit the subparagraph.

Paragraph (3), omit the words “, science and technology”.

Amendments agreed to.

MR WHITECROSS (11.32): I want to contribute briefly to this debate to reiterate some of the points made earlier by my colleague Mr Berry about the Labor Party's position. Our view is that work does need to be done on the disposition of functions in Assembly committees. We agree with Mr Kaine's point that the workloads of some of the committees are out of balance; indeed, this was an issue we were very concerned about when things first started. When the committees were originally proposed we were very concerned that the Planning and Environment Committee had too wide a brief and had too much to do, and now we have before us a proposal to take some of the work away from it. We are not entirely surprised; but the Labor Party's view is that any changes should have been part of a properly considered review of the functions of the committees, not simply a hiving off of the little bit that Mr Moore is happy to give away while leaving aside the substantive issues about the functions of the committees.

I was very touched by Mr De Domenico's concern for Mr Kaine's wellbeing and personal development. It is a matter that I know is close to his heart, and it is to be applauded.

Mr De Domenico: Just as I am concerned with yours, Andrew.

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