Page 4044 - Week 13 - Thursday, 6 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
breach of contract. The licence would simply be rescinded because the licensee had breached the statutory conditions imposed on them.
That being the case, it appears that there is technically no breach of the standing order. However, the situation would seem to be covered by the intent of the provision and, therefore, it certainly warrants further consideration. I therefore suggest that we look at amending the standing order so that it is an impartial committee that decides whether a conflict exists and the appropriate course of action to take when conflicts arise. I also suggest that the wording of the standing order be amended to cover benefits acquired by members in a broader sense rather than limiting it to contracts. It would seem to me that the committee for administration and procedure is probably in a position to do that, given that it is constituted by all parties in the Assembly. Given that we are engaged in a review of the standing orders at the moment, that committee has been looking at them quite extensively. It could be that we might have another look at that particular standing order. Given that the result of our intensive scrutiny is being tabled very shortly and will be there for all members to have a look at, that might be the way to go.
I believe that Mr Corbell has made some good arguments. The difference, however, is the level of control and the distinction between donations and ownership of the licences. The Labor Party actually owns the clubs that have the licences. That is what makes the difference. In relation to a committee inquiry, I would really prefer that we had a closer look at that standing order.
MR STEFANIAK (11:57): Mr Smyth moved that standing order 156 be referred to the standing committee on admin and procedure on 27 September last year. I support the motion. I was not quite sure what D Foskey was saying. She seemed to support the motion. I think it is a very sensible idea.
Mr Smyth quoted the standing order and the related section 15 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988. A fair amount of time has elapsed between when this debate started and now, and perhaps it is worth restating them. Standing order 156 states:
A Member who is a party to, or has a direct or indirect interest in, a contract made by or on behalf of the Territory or a Territory authority shall not take part in a discussion of a matter, or vote on a question, in a meeting of the Assembly where the matter or question relates directly or indirectly to that contract. Any question concerning the application of this standing order shall be decided by the Assembly.
Section 15 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act states:
(1) A member of the Assembly who is a party to, or has a direct or indirect interest in, a contract made by or on behalf of the Territory or a Territory authority shall not take part in a discussion of a matter, or vote on a question, in a meeting of the Assembly where the matter or question relates directly or indirectly to that contract.
(2) A question concerning the application of subsection (1) shall be decided by the Assembly, and a contravention of that subsection does not invalidate anything done by the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .