Page 61 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 27 November 2012

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

---

Question put:

That Mr Smyth’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

MR COE (Ginninderra) (12.18): I seek leave to move amendments 1 to 4 circulated in my name together.

MADAM SPEAKER: Just before you speak, Mr Coe, in your first amendment that you circulated you mentioned paragraph (4)(a)(iii). I presume you meant (4)(a)(ii)?

MR COE: Yes, I did.

MADAM SPEAKER: Will members be satisfied that we take that as amended as we go?

Leave granted.

MR COE: I move:

(1) Omit paragraph (4)(a)(ii), substitute “two members to be nominated by the Opposition”.

(2) Omit paragraph (4)(b)(ii), substitute “two members to be nominated by the Opposition”.

(3) Omit paragraph (4)(d)(ii), substitute “two members to be nominated by the Opposition”.

(4) Omit paragraph (4)(c)(ii), substitute “two members to be nominated by the Government”.

The argument that has been put forward by the government, including both Labor and the Greens, is that by having four people on the public accounts committee that will force members of the Assembly to cooperate and be collaborative in nature.

But the very arguments that Mr Corbell, Mr Rattenbury and Ms Gallagher have put forward surely stack up in support of the amendments I have circulated, to have four members on the committees. So, in the case of paragraphs 4(a), 4(b) and 4(d), if it is good enough for the government to demand two members on the committees that they are only reflected in with just one member, surely it is good enough for the opposition in turn to demand that we are also represented by two members on committees.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video