Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3906 ..
It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77. Ordered that the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.
Amendments agreed to.
MRS DUNNE (12.22): The opposition will be opposing the motion, as amended. As we have already indicated, and as has been indicated in previous debates here today, this is an inappropriate way for this Assembly to deal with the matter, which should be a matter of consultation between the crossbenchers. I think that it is unfortunate and an unfortunate precedent that we are setting here today that we have to come into this place and draft motions like this in this way. It speaks volumes about the sad state that we have come to and the amount of time and effort we have concentrated on what should be a matter of simple, straightforward procedure. We have had a lot of talk in this place this week about serving the public. Nothing that this debate has done over two sessions of Assembly business has done anything to serve the public. It is unfortunate that the members of the crossbench have not been able to resolve this matter amongst themselves.
The precedent being set by this motion, by attempting to expand committees in breach of the standing orders, is one that we should not set. I am concerned that many events of the last two sitting weeks have brought a new low to the standards of debate and the standards of procedure in this Assembly, one that has not been seen in my five or six years of observation of debate in this place. I think that to use this motion to countermand the standing orders is entirely inappropriate and, because the matter is one that is best resolved by the crossbenchers, the opposition will be opposing the motion.
MR CORNWELL (12.24): I rise to support my colleague in opposing the motion. It is interesting, Mr Speaker, that throughout this debate, apart from the original moving of the motion, we have heard nothing from Mrs Cross to justify these substantial changes to the committee system and the substantial changes to particular committees. As I asked earlier, why these two committees? Why not the other four? What is so important about these two? No justification was given for moving to ensure that the membership of the CSSE Committee and the Planning and Environment Committee be increased to four.
I said that that was being arrogant because it implied that the numbers were there to support this change, Mr Speaker. Let me add something else. If I were one of the members who had been so taken for granted in that support, I would be offended at the arrogant approach adopted. I repeat that I feel the decision is wrong. We have created an imbalance. I know we were chuckling about it before, but the truth of the matter is that we now have four women on the Planning and Environment Committee. I do not think that that is necessarily a desirable situation. I do wish to know why this should be the case. I would hope that in the closing stages of this debate the person who moved the original motion will have the decency to tell the rest of the Assembly why it was done.
MR STEFANIAK
(12.26): Mr Speaker, I think that it would be unfortunate if we were to pass this motion to pass, because it skews the work of the Assembly, it goes against standing order 221, which Mr Hargreaves has, in effect, amended to enable that to occur, and it places a very significant continuing load on the crossbench, specifically Ms Dundas and Ms Tucker, whom, I would think, as a result of this motion, still will be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .