Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2127 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
I informed the committee that its figures on the expenditure budget for the V8 Supercar race were wrong, but a majority of members refused to make the correction. For those members of the committee who are aware of the correct estimates to knowingly publish false data in the report reflects badly on the integrity and usefulness of the committee.
This very serious allegation was made yesterday in a dissenting report. If Mr Humphries wants to amend motions and intrude into committee processes and committee reports in this way, we will be opening up a new approach to the way we deal with committee reports. Mr Humphries' amendment is very unusual. I guess we can expect that Mr Corbell or other members of the estimates committee will want to insert certain words into the motion concerning the report of the estimates committee because basically they have been accused by Mr Hird of deliberately misleading in respect of information.
These are the sorts of issues that make this discussion so tricky. I value the role of the committees and the reports that they present. I see a distinction between what happens in the Assembly and those reports. It is dangerous to intrude into committee reports and to closely relate the work of committees to what happens in the Assembly. What would happen under a majority government? A majority government could start excising bits of reports of committees if it were in its political interests to do so.
Mr Humphries: I am not excising anything, Kerrie. Nothing has been excised.
MS
TUCKER: Mr Humphries says no, he is not excising anything. His solution is to insert some further wording. What I am trying to explain is that basically there is no consistency. Mr Hird said things that I think could be very offensive as well to members of the estimates committee. Are we going to move to the rather ridiculous situation of asking, "Well okay, what do we want next inserted into a committee report? Do we want the government response inserted? Does the opposition want the right to have responses to the dissenting reports inserted?"Basically, the conclusion that I have come to is that I will not support Mr Humphries' amendment. I will, with regret, support the motion that publication of the report be authorised. As I have said, I think it is difficult. I think Mr Hargreaves needs to be more careful in what he says, and I think Mr Hird needs to be more careful too. Everyone should be much more professional in the way they put their name to these reports. The credibility of the committee system is being undermined, and this debate is contributing to that. Although I support the motion to authorise the publication of the report, I ask that members take note of what we are doing to the credibility of the committee system.
MR
SPEAKER: Mr Berry has circulated an amendment which seeks to add to Mr Humphries' amendment the words "whether the comments were true or not". I have looked very carefully at this. House of Representatives Practice at page 345 states:An amendment has been ruled out of order on the grounds that it:
was frivolous
was tendered in the spirit of mockery ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .