Page 1229 - Week 04 - Thursday, 4 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is the committee that has to do that work. Mr Corbell’s amendment is an attempt to override that process. If he wants to override the standing orders, then he cannot do so on the basis that we can override the standing orders, because paragraph (5) of my motion would do that for him. He quoted it back to me. I will read it:
the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
The motion is not in effect. We are moving something, using the motion to give it effect, and that is inconsistent with the standing orders.
Mr Corbell has put forward an amendment to my motion that directs the committee to do something. I believe that that is inconsistent with standing order 225. To accommodate his amendment to my motion, Mr Corbell quotes my motion. He is saying, “If we pass the law that allows me to use the law, I will use the law to amend the law before we pass it.” That is inconsistent with the standing orders. That is the problem. If he really wants to take democracy into the pocket of the Labor Party, he can move his own motion and direct the committee to elect a Labor chair, but he cannot use a motion that has not been passed to direct the committee to do something they cannot do until the actual motion is passed. It is illogical, it is inconsistent, and it is in breach of the standing orders.
Paragraph (5) of my motion says, and I will read again:
the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
But we have not passed it. So it does not have effect. If he wants it to have effect, then he needs to move his own motion. Why is paragraph (5) there? Paragraph (5) appears there every year, and it appears there every year to authorise the activities of the committee as outlined in paragraph (4). What does paragraph (4) say? It says:
if the Assembly is not sitting when the Committee has completed its inquiry the Committee may send its report to the Speaker or, in the absence of the Speaker, to the Deputy Speaker, who is authorised to give directions for its printing, publishing and circulation …
That is what it seeks to do. Paragraph (5) of my motion overrides the interests of the public accounts committee. The public accounts committee, as a standing committee of this Assembly, has the duty, as set by the Assembly, to look into, inquire into and undertake inquiry into the finances and the budgeting of the government. When we set up the estimates committee it is for the specific purpose of looking at the budget. In that context, it overrides the rights of the pack. That is what paragraphs (4) and (5) of my motion do.
But my motion has not passed; so it is a furphy to say, “Based on paragraph (5), we will move Mr Corbell’s amendment.” That was the basis of Mr Corbell moving his amendment. He quoted my paragraph (5). He cannot quote my paragraph (5) to give effect to something that has not occurred. That is where it is inconsistent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .