Page 4394 - Week 14 - Thursday, 28 November 2013
Mr Coe: Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek your guidance on whether such reflections by Dr Bourke on a member’s chairing of a committee are appropriate.
DR BOURKE: On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am merely quoting from the Hansard.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Bourke, I beg your pardon; I did not hear what you said.
DR BOURKE: On the point of order, I am quoting from the Hansard to illustrate why—
Mr Coe: Well, you’re not. You’re paraphrasing.
DR BOURKE: Paraphrasing, quoting.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Bourke, you need to say you are paraphrasing or you need to actually quote—one or the other. Could you do that, please.
DR BOURKE: Then I shall quote from the Hansard:
In essence, Mr Hanson's ruling as chair was that his draft report would be the final report. Instead of carefully considering each paragraph and recommendation for inclusion or exclusion, this chair took it upon himself to say, “All my stuff is in whether you want it or not.”
So Madam Deputy Speaker, I took it upon myself to see the Clerk and seek advice, which I now seek leave to table.
DR BOURKE: I present the following document:
Standing Order 248—Amendment—Letter from the Clerk to Dr Bourke, dated 29 July 2013.
This brings me to the substance of the changes I have proposed to standing order 248. They considerably reduce the capacity of chairs to put forward their own interesting interpretations of what standing order 248 may be. Each paragraph is to be considered separately and the chair shall propose the question on each paragraph that the paragraphs or appendix be agreed to. In this way, at the end of this process we will have a draft report with paragraphs in it that the majority of the committee agree to in the usual way.
I see from the notice of motion that Mr Smyth has brought in that he thinks this is a good idea. He supports it, because he has taken the words I have put in here and transposed them into his notice of motion. I know Mr Rattenbury supports this rule change, and I know everybody on my side of the Assembly supports this rule interpretation. So, this is a 17-nil result. It is great. We have considered a matter, we