Page 2494 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS LE COUTEUR: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. The lesson out of this is that we all need to be respectful of the processes of this place. As many people have said, we have standing orders. We have standing orders for a reason, and when—
Mr Barr: Amend the Planning and Development Act in the—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Barr, I have asked you not to interject. I have asked all members not to interject. Ms Le Couteur will be heard in silence.
MS LE COUTEUR: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I really have little more to say. This is not about health or planning; this is about respect for the Assembly, and in particular respect for the estimates committee. “Admonish” is the word we thought appropriate, as at this stage we are warning and cautioning the minister that this is not acceptable behaviour. I commend my amendment to the Assembly.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.28): I thank members for their contributions. We are somewhat disappointed that the Greens have sought to downgrade the motion, but we believe that there needs to be some statement. We believe that censure is the appropriate statement. When we have such blatant contempt for the Assembly, we should have a strong statement; we believe that censure is at the right level. We disagree with the Greens on this, but in the end it is better that we have some statement by the Assembly condemning these actions rather than none. Whilst admonishment is far from ideal, it is probably what we will accept.
Ms Le Couteur made some good points in her comments just now. The minister does not get it. He does not appear to get it that the lesson is that now he will have to play better avoidance tactics than he did this time. That is not the lesson. The lesson needs to be that the Assembly is making a statement here. The Assembly is making a statement that it is unacceptable for a minister to simply thumb their nose at committees and to thumb their nose at the Assembly. They are answerable to the Assembly and, through us—through all of us, all 17 of us—to the people who elected us. That is why we have these processes, that is the way parliament is established and that is why it is so important.
We saw a fundamental misunderstanding. The manager of government business, when he spoke in this debate, showed a fundamental misunderstanding. He seemed to be suggesting that we should have just ignored the standing orders. He does not get it that 258 makes it very clear what the procedure is. The procedure is not, as Mr Corbell suggested, that once the minister comes back we go back to him and we say, “Well, what about this and what about that?” It is very clear. Standing order 258 makes it crystal clear. It says:
If a committee desires the attendance of a Member as a witness, the Chair of the committee shall, in writing, request that Member to attend …
We did that. It says:
… should the Member refuse to come—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .