Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 439 ..
MR SPEAKER: I draw members' attention to standing order 142:
An amendment may not be moved to any part of a question after a later part has been amended, or after a question has been proposed on an amendment thereto, unless the proposed amendment has, by leave, been withdrawn.
So if Mrs Dunne's amendment is carried, no further amendments will be entertained by the chair.
MS TUCKER (5.44): I seek leave to move an amendment that has been circulated in my name.
MS TUCKER: I move:
Before "the" (first occurring) insert "members".
This amendment to Mrs Dunne's amendment clarifies that we will be asking the minister to circulate to members of the Assembly the draft terms of reference. I am adding "members" after "Assembly". The motion will read that the terms of reference be circulated to Assembly members. That will avoid the problem of having to wait for a sitting week.
To reassure Mr Corbell, I do not believe people in this place are saying that they think we have the role of writing the terms of reference and usurping the responsibilities of government in that way. Mr Corbell has said that he is prepared to consider broadening the terms of reference if people are concerned. This is going to enable such broadening if people are concerned. This amendment, if supported, will mean that it can happen as soon as the minister is ready for it to happen and we can all have a look at it. I hope he recognises the spirit with which this amendment has been put.
MS DUNDAS (5.46): I rise in support of Ms Tucker's amendment. I believe it alleviates the concerns that are floating around the Assembly. However, I am a bit concerned about some comments that have been made. We have only 39 days of sitting in this calendar year. As is evidenced by today, we have a lot of issues we want to discuss in this chamber. This has raised a number of concerns about whether or not we will be able to see terms of reference in the Assembly or as members. I suggest we need to be very aware of the issues we are bringing to the floor for debate and speak to them in a concise way so that the number of issues we wish to deal with can be dealt with.
However, to get to the crux of the motion before us, does the need for consultation result in unnecessary delay? Only if the consultation is unnecessary. How do we know what we are looking at in any of these studies that are being proposed by the government if we do not see the terms of reference? I welcome the comments by the minister that he will broaden the terms of reference if there is valid criticism of them. However, I do not want this to happen after the terms of reference have already been put out and the study has already started, because we would then put a greater imposition on all those people who, in good faith, have undertaken to participate in the study. Getting the terms of reference in a draft form before the study starts will mean that we are able to comment, contribute