Page 3274 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 17 September 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
through the minutes of the meeting. And you can see where the committee voted on particular motions put forward by opposition members in regard to the recommendations. We went right through the report to the very end, where the committee considered and agreed to appendices A and B. However, as I said earlier, if some clarity is needed, I am happy to reconvene a meeting for discussion and clarity on that report.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (3.53): As one of the members of the committee I think it is important that I shed some light on the deliberation that took place on 4 September. I do not believe the minutes are completely accurate. I sought to have them amended, but that was not acceptable to the chair. In particular—
Dr Bourke: Point of order, Madam Speaker, the place for seeking amendments to minutes is at a meeting of the committee. There has been no meeting of this committee since 4 September.
MADAM SPEAKER: That is not a point of order; Mr Coe was outlining his position.
MR COE: Thank you, Madam Speaker, but on the interjection, for the final meeting, it is actually not for a meeting of the committee.
Paragraph 4.1.4 of the minutes and similar paragraphs say the committee considered and agreed to paragraphs. That is not correct. We did not consider and agree; the question the chair put to the committee was, “Do you want to exclude any of these paragraphs?” It was not, “Do you agree with them?” Had it been that, it would have been two-all. The question the chair asked of members was, “Do you disagree and, if so, will you move a motion?” And we did move motions.
Mr Barr: A bit like the estimates process, wasn’t it?
MR COE: It is interesting Mr Barr should mention the estimates process, because during the deliberations Mr Gentleman told us that the motion that the report be adopted was not put at the estimates committee. Mr Gentleman advised our committee that the basis of his decision was advice provided to the estimates committee and that he, in fact, had not abstained on the question that the report adopted. Well, the minutes differ considerably to what Mr Gentleman said in the planning committee. In actual fact, the estimates committee minutes show that Mr Gentleman did, in fact, abstain on the question that the report be adopted.
Mr Gentleman: Of course. I spoke about it in the chamber.
MR COE: No, you did not. That question was not put in this consideration by the planning committee of the report. This is now my fifth year on the planning committee, and for all variation inquiries—in fact, for all committee inquiries I have been a part of—the question has been put at the end that the report be adopted. Mr Gentleman did not put that question to the planning committee, and the onus was completely on other members to have paragraphs or recommendations excluded rather than Mr Gentleman putting forward a motion which, in effect, affirmed the report. It is for that reason that paragraph 4.1.67 of the minutes state that Mr Coe and Mr Wall
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video